RE: ?empirical evidence? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/22/2008 3:42:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

But astrology is rejected based on the fact that it has no basis in reality,


I suppose you're just dismissing the Mars Effect because you've been brainwashed by materialist scientists using stolen tax dollars to teach psychology in a way that rejects all astrological explanations. Oh sure, the materialist scholars say the Mars Effect is baloney, but they're all clearly biased. After all, CSICOP EXPELLED Professor Rawlins from their Council after he exposed them for what they were.

We all know science doesn't progress by proclamations and petitions, so it shows how vile the materialist conspiracy is when dozens of so-called scientists signed the "Objections to Astrology" in 1975. Surely, if they had evidence to show that astrology was baloney, they would have just published it, rather than resorting to petitions and fraudulently reported experiments. Science thinks astrology is substantial enough to publish a criticism of it, but do you ever hear scientists presenting the other side? Just like with Velikovsky. Scientists criticized his work, but the journals denied Velikovsky a forum to rebut his critics.

Ok, sorry, my organ of satire is now depleted. But honestly, science is treating ID in a very similar way that it treated/treats astrology or Velikovsky.

quote:

"If evolution has shortcomings, should the shortcomings be censored?" If you say yes, then you are religiously devoted to a scientific theory and should seek hospitalization.


I don't think I need to be hospitalized. I don't think the Pioneer anomaly needs to be discussed when teaching the theory of gravity.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 11:54:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I suppose you're just dismissing the Mars Effect because you've been brainwashed by materialist scientists using stolen tax dollars to teach psychology in a way that rejects all astrological explanations. Oh sure, the materialist scholars say the Mars Effect is baloney, but they're all clearly biased. After all, CSICOP EXPELLED Professor Rawlins from their Council after he exposed them for what they were.

We all know science doesn't progress by proclamations and petitions, so it shows how vile the materialist conspiracy is when dozens of so-called scientists signed the "Objections to Astrology" in 1975. Surely, if they had evidence to show that astrology was baloney, they would have just published it, rather than resorting to petitions and fraudulently reported experiments. Science thinks astrology is substantial enough to publish a criticism of it, but do you ever hear scientists presenting the other side? Just like with Velikovsky. Scientists criticized his work, but the journals denied Velikovsky a forum to rebut his critics.


I think the best indicator of whether or not something is scientific is whether or not it's falsifiable. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. Also note, in your example, it doesn't seem like they tried to blacklist anything. They merely advised against it. So it wasn't really a petition in the sense that it didn't try to legally require any changes.

quote:


Ok, sorry, my organ of satire is now depleted. But honestly, science is treating ID in a very similar way that it treated/treats astrology or Velikovsky.


The secular community is treating it similarly to how heliocentrism was treated, and a bunch of other valid scientific theories.

quote:


I don't think I need to be hospitalized. I don't think the Pioneer anomaly needs to be discussed when teaching the theory of gravity.


A teacher in a relevant class certainly wouldn't lose his job if he discussed the Pioneer anomaly, would he?



essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 12:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Also note, in your example, it doesn't seem like they tried to blacklist anything.


Then why are there no Velikovskian professors in universities? Why are there no Reichians? They have theories and evidence that conflicts with the scientific consensus. Why are they forced to make up their own little institutes, colleges and laboratories outside authentic academia? Why, because (like ID) they are not doing science, so they have to push their philosophy and pseudoscience elsewhere.

quote:

The secular community is treating it similarly to how heliocentrism was treated, and a bunch of other valid scientific theories.


They laughed at Galileo. Well, they laughed at Bozo the Clown, too. The fact that the scientific consensus dismisses ID is hardly evidence of its truth. Science may not leap to shift paradigms, but these shifts happen, and it's due to evidence and an intelligible theory that provides a better explanation. ID has so far failed to even play the game of science correctly, much less provide a better solution.



Jhud -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 1:33:28 PM)

quote:

Then why are there no Velikovskian professors in universities? Why are there no Reichians? They have theories and evidence that conflicts with the scientific consensus. Why are they forced to make up their own little institutes, colleges and laboratories outside authentic academia? Why, because (like ID) they are not doing science, so they have to push their philosophy and pseudoscience elsewhere.


I think the better question is, why are their still psychoanalysts and Marxists still teaching at universities?

quote:

They laughed at Galileo. Well, they laughed at Bozo the Clown, too. The fact that the scientific consensus dismisses ID is hardly evidence of its truth. Science may not leap to shift paradigms, but these shifts happen, and it's due to evidence and an intelligible theory that provides a better explanation. ID has so far failed to even play the game of science correctly, much less provide a better solution.


You miss the basic premise, which is indisputably happening with evolutionary theory; science which maintains itself by way of disavowing anyone who disagrees with it isn't science in the real sense of the word.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 1:41:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Then why are there no Velikovskian professors in universities?


Perhaps there are, but they shouldn't lose their jobs over it. As long as they teach the mainstream arguments objectively.

quote:


Why are there no Reichians?


ditto. Furthermore, if they want to teach these views, they should also teach criticisms and opposing views. Likewise, if they want to teach evolution (which isn't science, but regardless), they should likewise teach criticisms and opposing views.

quote:


They have theories and evidence that conflicts with the scientific consensus. Why are they forced to make up their own little institutes, colleges and laboratories outside authentic academia?


If they are forced out of academia and they have enough qualifications within the fields they are teaching (or want to research), I don't know why. As long as they teach the mainstream views objectively. Also note, the criteria for science is falsifiability. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. Another thing, how many tax payers do you suppose want to fund these views? There are many who wouldn't want to fund evolution and they shouldn't have to. If evolutionists want to fund their views they are free to donate without taking tax dollars from others. You also seem to confuse operational science with origins science. One doesn't need to speculate or know past events to know how things work here and now.

quote:


Why, because (like ID) they are not doing science, so they have to push their philosophy and pseudoscience elsewhere.


Again, ID = falsifiable, UCD != falsifiable. ID wants to do research and science, and it does. Its just that the secular community unscientifically wants to only fund that which won't contradict materialism.

quote:


The fact that the scientific consensus dismisses ID is hardly evidence of its truth.


I never said the fact that the alleged consensus dismisses ID is evidence for its truth. The fact that it is falsifiable and has not been falsified is evidence for its probable truth. The fact that the secular community is mistreating it is evidence for the fact that they are not interested in science.

quote:


ID has so far failed to even play the game of science correctly, much less provide a better solution.


You seem to be confusing UCD with ID. Remember, UCD = unfalsifiable. Darwin was wrong about a lot and it did not falsify UCD. They simply changed what would allegedly falsify it demonstrating its unfalsifiable nature. ID = falsifiable. Science welcomes criticisms and opposing views. UCD censors criticism and opposing views. That's a hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis.

You also seem to be deviating from the fact that they do not have to label criticisms and opposing views of evolution "science." As long as those who are required to take classes that teach evolution (and OET) are also required to be exposed to the strongest non - strawman arguments and opposing views. Otherwise, if evolution is so unscientific that it can't and/or doesn't withstand criticism and opposing views (and must insist on the censorship thereof), it should not use tax dollars in order to promote itself. It is free to take donations.

I also find it interesting that the only evidence evolutionists put forth for UCD seems to be this alleged consensus. Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on falsifiability. We have explained many times before why ID is falsifiable and why UCD is not. ID is more scientific than UCD.

Also note, in this post, when I use the word evolution, I am referring to UCD.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 2:20:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

science which maintains itself by way of disavowing anyone who disagrees with it isn't science in the real sense of the word.


Fortunately, ID is being disavowed for cause, not for disagreement. There is plenty of healthy disagreement in scientific circles.

To quote Mike Shermer:

quote:

Questioning Darwinism
A final leitmotif running through Expelled is inscribed in chalk by Stein in repetitive lines on a classroom blackboard: “Do not question Darwinism.” Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. At the World Summit on Evolution held in the Galapagos Islands during June 2005, for example, I witnessed a scientific theory rich in controversy and disputation. Paleontologist William Schopf of the University of California, Los Angeles, for instance, explained that “We know the overall sequence of life’s origin, that the origin of life was early, microbial and unicellular, and that an RNA world preceded today’s DNA-protein world.” He openly admitted, however, “We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world.” Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden declared that Darwin’s theory of sexual selection (a specific type of natural selection) is wrong in its claim that females choose mates who are more attractive and well-armed. Calling neo-Darwinians “bullies,” the University of Massachusetts biologist Lynn Margulis pronounced that “neo-Darwinism is dead” and, echoing Darwin, she said, “It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.” Why? Because, Margulis explained, “Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis — the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction — is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes: animals, plants, and fungi.” Finally, Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine (featured in Expelled) presented 11 problems with evolutionary theory, including: “Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism.”

Despite this public questioning of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which I reported on in Scientific American [“Rumsfeld’s Wisdom,” Skeptic, by Michael Shermer; Scientific American, September 2005], Schopf, Roughgarden, Margulis and Provine have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion. It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other ism in science)



Jhud -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 2:41:36 PM)

Well, the reality is those disagreements rarely see the light of day; and they are growing.

Even the fact that the speaker Schermer quotes claims that 'we know' that an , "RNA world preceded today’s DNA-protein world" is a subject of some debate.

So the reality is evolutionists know less than they claim to know, and they have no real basis for disallowing the reasoned criticisms of ID.



DanJames -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 5:49:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, the reality is those disagreements rarely see the light of day; and they are growing.

Even the fact that the speaker Schermer quotes claims that 'we know' that an , "RNA world preceded today’s DNA-protein world" is a subject of some debate.

So the reality is evolutionists know less than they claim to know, and they have no real basis for disallowing the reasoned criticisms of ID.


Well, Jack, most "evolutionists" like college professors readily admit that there's a lot we don't know. It's only the loud, charismatic poster boys of evolution that seem to be so confident about what we "know".



Jhud -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 6:01:09 PM)

Well, Jack, most "evolutionists" like college professors readily admit that there's a lot we don't know. It's only the loud, charismatic poster boys of evolution that seem to be so confident about what we "know".

This is true. In fact, I would occasionally challenge my professors in class, and as long as I did it respectfully and knowledgably, they often would either rescind or modify some statement they made.

Of course I never had Dr. John Patterson - he was a nutcase. He suggested in '82 or '83 at a departmental meeting that there be a standard that anyone at Iowa State who claimed that God had anything to do with creating the world should be kept from graduating with a science degree.

That created a bit of an uproar. And this was long before Gonzales was there.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 6:20:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, the reality is those disagreements rarely see the light of day;


Did not see the light of day? The disagreements he mentioned took place at the World Summit on Evolution, a scholarly conference attended by at least 180 evolutionary scientists. As well as by Shermer, who reported on the conference as a journalist for Scientific American. This is hardly something being kept in closed doors, where furtive heretics whisper their ideas to each other. This is the open exchange of ideas between experts in the field.

The same is true about the disagreements over chaotic inflation, or neutrino oscillation, or string theory, or loop quantum gravity, or CP-violation in B-mesons, or any number of other scholarly debates that raged, rage, or will rage in the future. You're not likely to see them in USA Today, but if you crack open a volume of Phys Rev D, you'll see plenty.



Jhud -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 6:36:42 PM)

quote:

Did not see the light of day? The disagreements he mentioned took place at the World Summit on Evolution, a scholarly conference attended by at least 180 evolutionary scientists. As well as by Shermer, who reported on the conference as a journalist for Scientific American. This is hardly something being kept in closed doors, where furtive heretics whisper their ideas to each other. This is the open exchange of ideas between experts in the field.


Well then, with so much conflict in the ranks you think they could squeeze in a couple of presentations by Dembski and Behe.

quote:

The same is true about the disagreements over chaotic inflation, or neutrino oscillation, or string theory, or loop quantum gravity, or CP-violation in B-mesons, or any number of other scholarly debates that raged, rage, or will rage in the future. You're not likely to see them in USA Today, but if you crack open a volume of Phys Rev D, you'll see plenty.


I tend more toward the biological spectrum in terms of my reading, but I am aware of the conflicts going on; indeed, ID has spurred a lot of the discussion on the biological side about the nature of complexity, whether evolutionists admit it or not.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/23/2008 10:24:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The same is true about the disagreements over chaotic inflation, or neutrino oscillation, or string theory, or loop quantum gravity, or CP-violation in B-mesons, or any number of other scholarly debates that raged, rage, or will rage in the future. You're not likely to see them in USA Today, but if you crack open a volume of Phys Rev D, you'll see plenty.


But it's OK for teachers to mention the pros and cons of these subjects in their relevant classes and not lose their jobs (my astronomy teacher talked about string theory in the class I took a few years back), but not criticisms of evolution and not opposing views. Yet such subjects are substantial enough for them to stir up huge debate among scientists.

quote:


a scholarly conference attended by at least 180 evolutionary scientists.


Do you suppose they would have allowed Behe or Dembski to attend (assuming it won't get violent if either of them did)?



coleel -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 6:48:07 PM)

quote:

Observations of the fossil record show many obvious cases of change over time. The flora & fauna of the Precambrian is different from the flora & fauna of later periods. Many transitional fossils are known between related species. This empirically observed change-over-time is what we mean by evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is our best explanation for how this evolution occurred.


Macro-evolution is not observable or testable. You can observe the fossil record all you want but thats all you're observing, a fossil record that has been interpreted many different ways over the years. Many will tell you there are no transitional fossils between species, only other similar species that have died out. Micro-evolution is observable but has nothing to do with macro. If you could actually observe the process of macro- evolution itself you might have something, otherwise it's a faith based theory based on the "opinions" of men only and questionable.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 7:30:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coleel

quote:

Micro-evolution is observable but has nothing to do with macro.


Could you clarify this statement please? I fail to understand how small changes accumulating over many generations could not result in major changes in a species.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 7:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

Given all the empirical evidence that has been gathered for evolution over 150+ years, its not likely to be falsified unless there is a major major discovery.

What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.



What would you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence and why?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 8:18:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
What would you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence and why?


A unicellular organism evolving into a multicellular organism that has as many cells as an adult ant via RM + NS because evolution claims to account for the existence of such organisms and hence the burden of proof is on those who claim it accounts for them. Claiming that it takes millions of years maybe true but is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 8:20:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Could you clarify this statement please? I fail to understand how small changes accumulating over many generations could not result in major changes in a species.


Small changes of a car over millions of years would not accumulate into changes that would turn the car into an airplane. Instead, the car would break down and decompose, but it would accumulate small changes over time.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 8:56:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
What would you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence and why?


A unicellular organism evolving into a multicellular organism that has as many cells as an adult ant via RM + NS because evolution claims to account for the existence of such organisms and hence the burden of proof is on those who claim it accounts for them. Claiming that it takes millions of years maybe true but is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.



It seems to me that you are outlining a projected phylogeny rather than naming empirical evidence. Why unicellularity to multicellularity rather than some other evolutionary transition? Why the criterion of "as many cells as an adult ant"?

What would the empirical evidence of mutation be? What would constitute empirical evidence that the mutation occurred randomly? What would the empirical evidence of selection be? What would the empirical evidence that it was natural selection (i.e. related to fitness function) rather than, say, sampling error be, and why would it be important that the selection be adaptive?

As it happens, there was a study in which a unicellular algae (IIRC) adapted to predation pressure by becoming multicellular. I don't recall if mutations were involved. The fact that it only became multicellular after a predator was introduced suggests natural selection, but I don't know that you consider that empirical enough.

It does, to my mind, constitute empirical evidence that unicellular populations can become multicellular.

I can look up the paper if you like.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 9:09:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
It seems to me that you are outlining a projected phylogeny rather than naming empirical evidence.


I am requesting empirical evidence that evolution can plausibly produce what you claim it has. Making up speculative pathways is not evidence, it's speculation.

quote:


Why unicellularity to multicellularity rather than some other evolutionary transition?


You claim that evolution is responsible for molecule to ant evolution. The burden of proof is on you.

quote:


Why the criterion of "as many cells as an adult ant"?


As many cells as a human is fine too. Why did I choose an ant? Evolution claims to account for the existence of man but I figure I'll make it easy on you. It would also be reasonable for me to ask you to demonstrate molecule to man evolution (in terms of number of atoms or cells) via RM + NS since evolution claims to account for this.

quote:


What would the empirical evidence of mutation be?


I do not doubt that random mutations happen. I doubt that RM + NS is responsible for UCD.

quote:


What would constitute empirical evidence that the mutation occurred randomly?


Ditto

quote:


What would the empirical evidence of selection be?


I do not doubt that selection happens, I doubt that it is responsible for UCD.

quote:


What would the empirical evidence that it was natural selection (i.e. related to fitness function) rather than, say, sampling error be,


Ditto

quote:


and why would it be important that the selection be adaptive?


Why would the environment adapt to what it selects?

quote:


The fact that it only became multicellular after a predator was introduced suggests natural selection, but I don't know that you consider that empirical enough.


This would suggest gene regulation or something of that nature. It would suggest natural selection if some of them were multicellular, others were unicellular, and the predator destroyed unicellular organisms, hence selecting the multicellular ones. Natural selection selects what already exists, it doesn't create anything new. If it only became multicellular after the predator was introduced and it did not before, then that suggests something else is going on. If some of them were multicellular, others were not, and the predator destroyed the unicellular organisms, selecting the multicellular ones, that would be natural selection.

quote:


I can look up the paper if you like.


You are free to.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 9:12:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Could you clarify this statement please? I fail to understand how small changes accumulating over many generations could not result in major changes in a species.


Small changes of a car over millions of years would not accumulate into changes that would turn the car into an airplane. Instead, the car would break down and decompose, but it would accumulate small changes over time.


Please remember the basics of biology. One of them is that biological entities self-replicate and inheritable changes are inherited by new-born members of the species. So what if the host of the first change breaks down and decomposes? The change has already been passed on to a young and vigorous new "car"--possibly to several since we need not assume only one surviving offspring.

Now another change occurs and is inherited along with the first. And then another and another.

How does this accumulation of small changes fail to produce major changes in a species?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 9:15:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Please remember the basics of biology. One of them is that biological entities self-replicate and inheritable changes are inherited by new-born members of the species. So what if the host of the first change breaks down and decomposes? The change has already been passed on to a young and vigorous new "car"--possibly to several since we need not assume only one surviving offspring.

Now another change occurs and is inherited along with the first. And then another and another.

How does this accumulation of small changes fail to produce major changes in a species?


The point here is that just because things change over time, it is not evidence for UCD. Polymorphic computer viruses change over time but the fact that one does does not mean that it would ever evolve into a self replicating operating system like Windows. Heck, a fast, stable operating system that's easy to use maybe beneficial because humans may want to use it (and hence "natural selection" may select for it). Yet polymorphic computer viruses do not evolve into one.

quote:


Now another change occurs and is inherited along with the first. And then another and another.


How many of these changes has been observed to produce new limbs, organs, appendages, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them? You claim that they have and the burden of proof is on you. I don't deny that changes occur, but I have no reason to believe that those changes would ever produce (or have ever produced) the structures listed.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 10:30:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

I am requesting empirical evidence that evolution can plausibly produce what you claim it has. Making up speculative pathways is not evidence, it's speculation.


Don't discount speculation. It plays an important role in science. Speculation is needed to develop a hypothesis. Then one determines what empirical evidence is needed to support (or falsify) the hypothesis.

So if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors, what intermediate stages would be hypothetically necessary? What empirical evidence would be needed to indicate that such intermediate stages had an actual existence? Has such evidence been found?



quote:


You claim that evolution is responsible for molecule to ant evolution. The burden of proof is on you.


Actually, I don't. Biological evolution does not take place in an abiotic environment.

quote:


As many cells as a human is fine too. Why did I choose an ant? Evolution claims to account for the existence of man but I figure I'll make it easy on you.


How about 50,000 cells?

quote:


I do not doubt that random mutations happen.


Why not? What empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and that they occur randomly?

quote:

I doubt that RM + NS is responsible for UCD.


Of course, its not. You can have evolution without a universal common ancestor. Most modern models of creationism include evolution within created kinds. The process of evolution does not dictate that all current species descended from the same ancestor.

The evidence of phylogenetic relationships does lead to the conclusion of common ancestry. At least for complex species.

There is a lot of re-thinking going on about evolution in unicellular species, especially among prokaryotes which apparently exchanged DNA quite promiscuously with other species, so that one cannot trace lineages among them as one can with complex eukaryotes.

quote:


I do not doubt that selection happens,


So, what empirical evidence convinced you that selection happens?

quote:

I doubt that it is responsible for UCD.


See above.

quote:

quote:


and why would it be important that the selection be adaptive?


Why would the environment adapt what it selects?


That is what "natural selection" means--that the species becomes better adapted to the environment, or better still--to an ecological niche. The environment selects what is better adapted.

Sexual selection, as the name implies, is selection through preferential mating.

Genetic drift refers to the fact that the gene pool of any generation is a sampling of the gene pool of the previous generation and may distribute alleles somewhat differently than in the previous generation. Particularly in small populations, genetic drift may have more evolutionary impact than natural or sexual selection.

Gene flow occurs when a migrant from a different population successfully breeds with the established population and brings new genetic material into the gene pool.

So there are a number of ways to produce evolutionary change. Natural selection is only one of them and I wondered why you focused on that one in particular.

quote:

quote:


The fact that it only became multicellular after a predator was introduced suggests natural selection, but I don't know that you consider that empirical enough.


This would suggest gene regulation or something of that nature.


Why? I am not saying you are wrong. But what suggests gene regulation?

Are you suggesting that gene regulation does not evolve? That gene regulation takes it out of the evolutionary picture?

In one article on the evolution of multicellurity, several characteristics necessary to the formation of cell colonies and multicellularity are mentioned e.g. holding cells together "by a matrix of extracellular molecules secreted by the cells themselves."

Do you think this secretion of extracellular molecules occurs without an inherited genetic program for it? Ditto for such developments as cytoplasmic bridges, cellulose cell walls and epithelial sheets.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61


quote:

It would suggest natural selection if some of them were multicellular, others were unicellular, and the predator destroyed unicellular organisms, hence selecting the multicellular ones.


True, but this doesn't explain the multicellular formation in the first place. It only explains that it is advantageous in the face of some predators.

quote:

Natural selection selects what already exists, it doesn't create anything new. If it only became multicellular after the predator was introduced and it did not before, then that suggests something else is going on.


Yes, the key thing in this experiment is that the multicellularity was permanent. There are many species which coalesce into a multicellular form temporarily (e.g. slime molds), but when the purpose for coalescing into multicellularity has passed, they divide again into individual cells. In this particular case, the algae retained its multicellular form after the predator was removed again. So what may have once been a temporary response mode became the permanent form of the species.


I take it then, that you do not see a problem with the evolution of multicellularity per se.

So, if you have no problem with mutation, selection or multicellularity, what is it that you want empirical evidence for? Presumably, you have already seen empirical evidence for all of the above.

quote:

quote:


I can look up the paper if you like.


You are free to.



http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/evec/1998/00000012/00000002/00171545;jsessionid=593f245agi0ja.alice?format=print



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 10:37:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

The point here is that just because things change over time, it is not evidence for UCD.


No, that is off-topic.

The claim was that: Micro-evolution is observable but has nothing to do with macro.


That is your claim, and the burden is on you to defend it.

What disconnects large change from an accumulation of inherited small changes?

How can an accumulation of small changes not eventually result in large changes in a species?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/26/2008 11:01:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
Don't discount speculation. It plays an important role in science. Speculation is needed to develop a hypothesis. Then one determines what empirical evidence is needed to support (or falsify) the hypothesis.


So Darwin speculated UCD and his predictions were false. UCD is either falsified or it is unfalsifiable.

quote:


So if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors, what intermediate stages would be hypothetically necessary? What empirical evidence would be needed to indicate that such intermediate stages had an actual existence? Has such evidence been found?


The problem is that the secular community works under the assumption that UCD is true and they interpret the fossils within that assumption. IOW, it doesn't really matter what the evidence, they could find something to interpret as evidence for your hypothesis.

Your question also assumes that fossil evidence can adequately demonstrate UCD to be true. I can ask, "if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors" what sort of cosmological evidence would hypothetically be necessary. Even if you claim that the fossil evidence can adequately demonstrate UCD to be true, the fossil evidence shows many gaps and it shows a large degree of stasis, hardly evidence for UCD.

quote:


Actually, I don't. Biological evolution does not take place in an abiotic environment.


Cell to an adult ant evolution then.

quote:

How about 50,000 cells?


From one cell to an organism of 50,000 cells via RM + NS? An organism with appendages, limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, etc... such as that of an adult ant? You have such evidence?

quote:


Why not? What empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and that they occur randomly?


Do you deny this to be the case? If not, then lets just assume it is true to make it easy on you. Otherwise, if you don't deny it to be the case, I want you to first answer me what empirical evidence convinced you that random mutations occur. If you deny that random mutations occur, then we can continue this discussion from there.

quote:


Of course, its not. You can have evolution without a universal common ancestor. Most modern models of creationism include evolution within created kinds. The process of evolution does not dictate that all current species descended from the same ancestor.


You claim UCD is true and I ask for empirical evidence that evolution can plausibly account for new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA for them. You claim that it can, the burden of proof is on you.

quote:


The evidence of phylogenetic relationships does lead to the conclusion of common ancestry. At least for complex species.


The phylogenetic relationships are speculated.

quote:


There is a lot of re-thinking going on about evolution in unicellular species, especially among prokaryotes which apparently exchanged DNA quite promiscuously with other species, so that one cannot trace lineages among them as one can with complex eukaryotes.


The notion that these lineages exist is speculated.

quote:


So, what empirical evidence convinced you that selection happens?


Do you deny this to be the case? If not, then lets just assume it is true to make it easy on you. Otherwise, if you don't deny it to be the case, I want you to first answer me what empirical evidence convinced you that selection occurs. If you deny that selection occurs, then we can continue this discussion from there.

quote:


That is what "natural selection" means--that the species becomes better adapted to the environment, or better still--to an ecological niche. The environment selects what is better adapted.


I know what natural selection means. That's not exactly what I meant when I asked that. You said, "and why would it be important that the selection be adaptive?" and I meant to ask, "Why would the environment adapt to what it selects?"

quote:


So there are a number of ways to produce evolutionary change. Natural selection is only one of them and I wondered why you focused on that one in particular.


I said RM + NS, which is what Darwin claimed. I wanted to make sure you don't confuse evolution with human development, which is what some evolutionists do. So I specify what I mean.

quote:


Why? I am not saying you are wrong. But what suggests gene regulation?


I already explained.

quote:


Do you think this secretion of extracellular molecules occurs without an inherited genetic program for it? Ditto for such developments as cytoplasmic bridges, cellulose cell walls and epithelial sheets.


Which begs the question, how did that program develop and what evidence do you have that it would develop by these means (and don't assume the consequences. Don't say that, because it exists, it must have evolved)?

quote:


True, but this doesn't explain the multicellular formation in the first place. It only explains that it is advantageous in the face of some predators.


So?

quote:


Yes, the key thing in this experiment is that the multicellularity was permanent. There are many species which coalesce into a multicellular form temporarily (e.g. slime molds), but when the purpose for coalescing into multicellularity has passed, they divide again into individual cells. In this particular case, the algae retained its multicellular form after the predator was removed again. So what may have once been a temporary response mode became the permanent form of the species.


So?

quote:


I take it then, that you do not see a problem with the evolution of multicellularity per se.

So, if you have no problem with mutation, selection or multicellularity, what is it that you want empirical evidence for? Presumably, you have already seen empirical evidence for all of the above.


I already told you. New limbs, organs, appendages, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them. Evolution claims to account for such systems so the burden of proof is on those who claim that it does.



gluadys -> RE: ?empirical evidence? (4/27/2008 12:29:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
So Darwin speculated UCD and his predictions were false. UCD is either falsified or it is unfalsifiable.

Darwin did not make any predictions relative to universal common descent, because he only speculated and did not form any hypotheses. Others have formed hypotheses which have been tested and have not been falsified. e.g. that if birds evolved from dinosaurs, at least some dinosaurs developed feathers. That prediction was made a decade before the first feathered dinosaurs were found.

quote:

Your question also assumes that fossil evidence can adequately demonstrate UCD to be true. I can ask, "if one speculates that an amphibian such as a newt is the descendant of a group of fish-type ancestors" what sort of cosmological evidence would hypothetically be necessary. Even if you claim that the fossil evidence can adequately demonstrate UCD to be true, the fossil evidence shows many gaps and it shows a large degree of stasis, hardly evidence for UCD.


My question does not assume fossil evidence at all. Why did you jump to that? Fossil evidence is only one option among a variety of possibilities. The rest of your response is irrelevant filler.

quote:

From one cell to an organism of 50,000 cells via RM + NS?


Not necessarily. Let's deal with one criterion at a time. You originally asked for a multicellular organism with as many cells as an adult ant. I am asking if 50,000 cells would be adequate.


quote:

quote:


Why not? What empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and that they occur randomly?


Do you deny this to be the case?


Of course not. But the question was, what empirical evidence convinced you that mutations occur and occur randomly?


quote:


You claim UCD is true and I ask for empirical evidence that evolution can plausibly account for new limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA for them. You claim that it can, the burden of proof is on you.


You are folding two different questions into one. The process of evolution accounts for limbs, organs, organ systems, etc. by the nature of the process. But you can have all that without UCD. You could have (as Darwin also speculated) a dozen or so original animal kinds and let evolution generate diversity within those kinds.

However, when we start working out where the common ancestor of each kind is, then we start finding evidence that the biosphere is indivisible. You work back to the common ancestor of canids and find that early canids were remarkably like early ursids. (bears). It becomes hard to distinguish an ancestral wolf from an ancestral bear. You find fossils that could be either one. So you posit a common bear-dog ancestor. But this looks remarkably like something that could be a common bear-cat ancestor. So now we have a possible common bear-cat-dog ancestor. And before you know it, you have a common carnivore-rodent ancestor and a common rodent-bat ancestor.

Always, what appear to be distinct lineages merge into indistinguishable ancestral groups. So the evidence continually forces one toward common descent.

quote:

The phylogenetic relationships are speculated.


Yes, and then the speculation is developed into a testable hypothesis and the empirical evidence for or against the hypothesis is sought. Given a speculated relationship between a rat and a squirrel, what empirical evidence would count for or against that relationship? Do you know how phylogenetic theses are tested?

quote:

The notion that these lineages exist is speculated.


Are you saying there is no such thing as biologically inherited traits?

quote:

quote:


So, what empirical evidence convinced you that selection happens?


Do you deny this to be the case?


No, but the question is, what convinced you?


quote:

If not, then lets just assume it is true


No, let us not assume. Can you give me an example of natural selection which you found compelling?


quote:


and I meant to ask, "Why would the environment adapt to what it selects?"


That makes more sense, and of course, that is not what I was saying.

quote:

quote:


Why? I am not saying you are wrong. But what suggests gene regulation?


I already explained.


Sorry, I didn't see any explanation. Can you either repeat it or direct me to it?

quote:

quote:


Do you think this secretion of extracellular molecules occurs without an inherited genetic program for it? Ditto for such developments as cytoplasmic bridges, cellulose cell walls and epithelial sheets.


Which begs the question,



Let's first answer the question. Is the function of secreting molecules, cellulose, whatever inherited? Like the mammalian function of secreting milk for one's progeny? Or a rattlesnake's function of secreting venom?


quote:

quote:


Yes, the key thing in this experiment is that the multicellularity was permanent. There are many species which coalesce into a multicellular form temporarily (e.g. slime molds), but when the purpose for coalescing into multicellularity has passed, they divide again into individual cells. In this particular case, the algae retained its multicellular form after the predator was removed again. So what may have once been a temporary response mode became the permanent form of the species.


So?


So there is an observed plausible mechanism for unicellular organisms developing into a permanently multicellular form. Other mechanisms have also been hypothesized, but I don't know if they have been observed.


quote:

I already told you. New limbs, organs, appendages, organ systems, body plans, etc... or the DNA for them. Evolution claims to account for such systems so the burden of proof is on those who claim that it does.


Well, sorry for being dense, but I still don't see the nub of the problem. You do agree that DNA programs the development of limbs, organs, etc in the developing embryo, right?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI