|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/22/2008 3:42:06 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 734
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 11:54:17 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 12:47:50 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 734
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 1:33:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6769
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
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.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 1:41:04 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/23/2008 2:12:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 2:20:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 734
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
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)
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 2:41:36 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6769
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
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.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 5:49:37 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 434
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
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".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 6:01:09 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6769
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
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.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 6:20:09 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 734
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 6:36:42 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6769
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
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.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/23/2008 10:24:31 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 6:48:07 PM
|
|
|
coleel
Posts: 7
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 7:30:52 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 7:32:15 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
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?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 8:18:01 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 8:20:56 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 8:56:17 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 9:09:22 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/26/2008 10:23:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 9:12:35 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 9:15:14 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1223
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/26/2008 9:32:59 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 10:30:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ?empirical evidence? - 4/26/2008 10:37:47 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: online
|
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?
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
