Evolution

[Achilles]

and sure species go extinct but...the links evolved from monkeys and if a batch went extinct then a new batch of them would evolve from monkeys again...

Eh...kinda sorta. No species is static. You're trying to picture it as a linear progression and it doesn't exactly work that way.

 

Suppose you have Species A which eventually splits off Species B. However Species A is still around and changing over time to their environment and eventually splits off Species C as well. At some point, the environment turns sour for Species A and they die off, but Species B and C are still ok. Species B splits off into Species D, and C splits off E. Eventually B dies. Species C, D, and E are okay however D looks very different from C and E and cannot mate with them. Despite their different looks and inability to mate they are related and share a common ancestor (Species A).

 

Because Species A and B were well adapted to an environment that no longer exists, the surviving Species won't split off in A or B. So they are gone forever.

 

Do you think that life was just an accident?

"Accident" implies that there was a purpose. Since there is no reason to believe there was a purpose, neither can I think it was an "accident".

 

Do I think that life occurred because of chance? Yes I do. However, I also think that there is a compelling argument that the odds of that chance happening are so good that you could consider it inevitable.

[Samuel Dravis]

Theory:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

 

I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it. If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that). So the only predicted outcome is a very different life-filled rock, but this would not prove that our biosphere is the result of evolution because our outcome was different. Yes that is very circular logic (bordering on mobius), but that is my point. So, if an experiment lacks the power to prove it, then the only other way to prove a theory is through complete observation of the whole process, and since there are no time machines that method is out.

 

To be proven, a theory must be testable. A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law. We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory. Any good scientist will tell you that. Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub:jab:). Or scientists like Stephen Gould (well, he would if he wasn't dead), and the list goes on.

 

I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.

There's some confusion here with the word "theory" and its use. The way Achilles has used it is quite similar to Popper's use (you can read a bit about that here). This kind of use is where falsification plays a large role in the usefulness of the theory. The idea that a theory is "true" or "false" is not really in question, which I am already sure you agree on:

 

Theory

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

 

From your post, I imagine you think of a proof of evolution as something that makes evolution necessarily the case (i.e. logically the case-- "Evolution must be the way it is done, there is no other possible way that would fit the facts."). But we don't require any such proof, because science (in Popper's sense) isn't even faintly interested in that kind of thing.

 

In our kind of parlance, the "truth" (or "proof") of a scientific theory lies in its explanatory ability and predictive capacity, not logical necessity. Einstein's Relativity theory is not, for example, just a theory because we can imagine cases in which it fails to explain phenomena. Rather, it is a scientific theory just because we can imagine those cases!

 

A scientific law is essentially the same as a scientific theory in terms of its being subject to falsifiability. Again, there's no logical necessity involved here to legitimize our saying that it is a law.

 

This, of course, means that it's entirely possible for scientific laws (yes, laws!) to be broken, theories dismantled, ideas disproven. Those possibilities go hand in hand with the scientific endeavor. Science describes nature, it does not explain it (i.e. there's no such thing as an "explanation" to be found here-- not to say that we just can't find one, but that anything we could come up with would have no criteria to show that is the correct explanation).

[narfblat]

You're a biologist and yet you don't know the first thing about the scientific method, scientific nomenclature, the theory of evolution, etc? The lies are starting to pile up, friend.

Wow, you've graduated from gainsaying to insults and character assassination. What a big boy! Let's check your "truthiness."

 

The Theory of Evolution has been throughly tested.

How? We don't have the few billion or even a few million years to run the experiment necessary. And don't say "microevolution." We are talking about macroevolution.

 

False. Direct observation is not the only means of testing.

I never said that it was. I said that theories must be tested. As far as testing, see above.

 

Theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth...No it does not and if you are going to insist that it does, then you are going to need to provide a reputable source to support your assertion.

Perhaps I should have been more specific that the organisms would be very different. As far as a source, how about basic evolutionary concepts such as genetic drift, migration, variable survivabilty and random mutations. Evolution is as much a collection of 6 billion years of dumb luck as it is a collection of six billion years of natural selection. The effects of random events are a basic tenant of evolutionary theory. Random events can have a huge effect on individuals and populations and therefore change evolutionary history (giant meteor anyone?).

 

Theory is not synonymous with "hunch" or "guess" as you seem to think.

That would be a hypothesis. I said that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for observed phenomena, and I even said that it was correct, not a "hunch."

 

Gee, if "logic and evidence" don't get to be "proof" than what does?

Reproducable, predictable results of experimentation. Thats what the scientific method is all about. (Oh, and alcohol content equal to percentage by volume times two.)

 

What did he win the Prize for?

Gene knockouts. If you can't figure out his name from that, your credentials are more suspect than a balding 44 year-old man offering free gyno exams in the back of his van.

[Achilles]

How? We don't have the few billion or even a few million years to run the experiment necessary. And don't say "microevolution." We are talking about macroevolution.

As I stated above (and you appear to concede below) direct observations aren't necessary. You don't need to witness a murder to know that it happened and often you can find out who committed without actually having seen it with your own eyes. Same principles apply here.

 

I never said that it was. I said that theories must be tested. As far as testing, see above.

A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law.

Try again.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific that the organisms would be very different.

You're still wrong. The Theory of Evolution doesn't make any predictions about what the organisism look like, whether they will be different, etc.

 

The ToE states that organisms here on Earth have changed over time and that natural selection favors the organisms that are best adapted to their environment.

 

That would be a hypothesis. I said that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for observed phenomena, and I even said that it was correct, not a "hunch."

"did likely occur" (a mistake that a biologist would not make because they know that it's still occuring) is not the same thing as saying that it is "correct".

 

Reproducable results of experimentation.

Yes indeed that is one standard. Being a scientist though, I'm sure that you are familiar with the others, right (like ability to make predictions).

 

Gene knockouts.

Which one? Three men shared the prize.

[narfblat]

You don't need to witness a murder to know that it happened and often you can find out who committed without actually having seen it with your own eyes.

You said that evolution had been "throughly tested," not that the evidence supports it. I agree that evidence supports it. I defy you to show that it has been tested. (Since you knew you were wrong you redirected the question. For shame.)

 

The Theory of Evolution doesn't make any predictions about what the organisism look like

Okay, Evolutionary theory, instead of the Theory of Evolution, predicts that different outcomes are more likely than the same outcome as per the reasons I listed above (genetic drift, etc.) Lets take for example the human PCDH11Y gene. It is responsible for directing the formation of neural pathways. Defects in it may lead to developmental disabilities, especially those related to speech. In all apes it occurs only on the X Chromosome, but in human it occurs on the Y as well. (In human females it escapes X inactivation on the second X-chromosome, but thats not part of this discussion.) This is most likely the result of a single, one-time, crossover event, meaning that all human males are descended from one male ancestor. Examining changes in the PCDH11Y gene vs PCDH11X in apes places the event around the same time as our human ancestors split from chimp ancestors. This gene could have actually been the dividing line. If that random crossover event never occurred (or that one individual did not breed or its descendants did not reach large enough numbers to push the gene to fixation) our evolution would be greatly different. Single random events change the evolution of species.

 

What I was actually saying though, was that there would be no way for us to test the ToE.

 

Reproducable results of experimentation. Yes indeed that is one standard. Being a scientist though, I'm sure that you are familiar with the others, right (like ability to make predictions).

Yes, that is a standard as well, but it is asinine to say that the ToE makes good predictions about what has already happened. That is the same way that people say that Nostradamus predicted 9/11, Katrina, etc. You can't make predictions ex post facto. In order for a prediction to be good, it must predict something that has not yet happened. You even stated that the ToE doesn't make predictions of outcomes (and I agree, and concede that I should have said evolutionary theory in that post, not the ToE; you were right to correct me on that).

 

Again, I am stating that we cannot effectively test the ToE.

 

 

Which one? Three men shared the prize.

In my opinion, the other two were riding on Mario's labcoattails.

 

Again, I am saying that the Theory of Evolution is correct. I am also again saying that it has not been tested.

[Achilles]

You said that evolution had been "throughly tested," not that the evidence supports it. I agree that evidence supports it. I defy you to show that it has been tested.

Each time a prediction made by the ToE is confirmed, another test has been passed. The discovery of genetics is just the most obvious example of this.

 

This is most likely the result of a single, one-time, crossover event, meaning that all human males are descended from one male ancestor.

I think the more accurate assertion would be that that particular trait could be traced back to a single common male ancestor. However I think this would be a tough sell, considering that the best chance of documenting such a theory would be mitrochondrial DNA which is only passed from mother to daughter.

 

What I was actually saying though, was that there would be no way for us to test the ToE.

And you, again, would be wrong.

 

Yes, that is a standard as well, but it is asinine to say that the ToE makes good predictions about what has already happened.

Prediction: If ToE is true, then researchers should be able to find some way to show how traits are passed from generation to generation.

 

Result: the discovery of genetics.

 

Prediction: If the ToE is true, then researchers should be able to find fossil evidence of gradual transitions between species over time.

 

Result: Countless fossil discoveries that confirm this.

 

Prediction: If the ToE is true, then organisms should possess vestigal traits.

 

Result: (just in humans) the tail bone, the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc.

 

Not quite on par with the Nostradumus parallels you try to draw. But if you'd like to argue your case further then please feel free to present some other argument that explains all of these predictions.

 

In order for a prediction to be good, it must predict something that has not yet happened.

Or not yet discovered/known about.

 

You mean like when Darwin predicted genetics 70 years before it was discovered? Or when paleontologists predict that they will find a certain transitional species in a particular place in the ground, then they go dig there and find it? Or how about when geneticists predicted that they would find a fused chromosome in the human genome after noticing that the rest of the apes had 22 pairs, but we only had 21 and then found it (chromosome 2)?

 

Again, I am stating that we cannot effectively test the ToE.

<snip>

I am also again saying that it has not been tested.

I hope Mario helps you out with that before you graduate.

[Nerd_Annhilator]

why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?

 

I believe in evolution because to me, it appears to be the far more logical theory. If I were scared there might be a god my opinion would be much like yours; believing otherwise.

 

As for your general views and basis of argument, I think you should be pretty ashamed of yourself as a christian for using your religion as a weapon. This "scared there might be a god?" crap is ridiculous. But I won't go off topic.

 

Disclaimer: I read only up to the quoted post.

[EnderWiggin]

I'm a fellow Christian (one who believes Evolution was God's tool) and I have but three things to say:

why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?

YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?

 

Now I understand the reason that Achilles gets so worked up over this subject. A lot of what you've said in this thread makes my eye twitch.

 

And if you think I'm not worth this argument then look up Eric Hovand, he is worth it and he is where I learned all of why evolution is a joke...

 

Hovand? Good source. No bias at all, there.

 

Mankind sinned and not everything is perfect anymore and besides humans have things in them that they could live without, like kidney's

 

Humans can't live without kidneys. Talk to someone with renal failure if you disagree. Thanks.

 

_EW_

[M@RS]

You can live with only one kidney, I was trying to say that I guess I forgot to say one kidney, oops, and Anthony I'm not using my religion as a weapon, Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.

[Achilles]

Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.

I never shy away from an opportunity to help educate others.

[EnderWiggin]

You can live with only one kidney, I was trying to say that I guess I forgot to say one kidney, oops, and Anthony I'm not using my religion as a weapon, Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.

 

So you posted because you thought no one would respond? What was the point then? I'm not sure I follow your logic. One might guess that you were actually looking to have a discussion because you started a thread in a discussion forum.

 

I never shy away from an opportunity to help educate others.

 

You? Shy away?

 

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Link to full story

WASHINGTON - Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land.

 

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.

Funny that such a thing would even exist if creationism/intelligent design were true. Oddly enough, ToE predicts the existence of such fossils. Hmm....

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

clearly they sinned against the Lord and He punished them justly

[Achilles]

On one hand, it makes me happy to hear that these ancient tetrapods were granted enough free will to violate the wishes of Our Lord. On the other hand, I'm very sad that they choose not to adhere to the Word of God that they would have obviously had in their ancient tetrapod bibles.

[M@RS]

This was probably a scam, it wouldn't be the first time...

[Achilles]

"Probably" a scam? Your reasoning, sir?

[M@RS]

It wouldn't be the first time...and I won't be surprised if it is a scam, I can think of two scams off of the top of my head...

[Achilles]

Does the fact that human beings have been struck by lightning during the day mean that you will "probably" be struck by lightning today?

 

You're welcome to make whatever baseless accusations you would like, however if you would like to enjoy being taken seriously, you might want to consider aiming just a tad bit higher with your arguments.

 

P.S. Those "scams" were uncovered by scientists. You don't get to have it both ways.

[M@RS]

By the way, what's a fatwa? Just curious, and Evolution is still a theory...

[Achilles]

Why don't you google it? Yes, the Theory of Evolution is still a scientific Theory.

[Tyrion]

This was probably a scam, it wouldn't be the first time...

 

It's a bit like miracles, isn't it? The difference is, scientists actually attempt to verify their finds...

 

(Curiously enough, according to wikipedia, a fatwa is not a declaration of a death sentence as it is used in Achilles' sig. Such use of the word is apparently a Western bastardization of its original meaning as a religious opinion on Islamic law.)

[Achilles]

I stole the line from presentation made by Richard Dawkins. He was discussing "what science would look like if it operated like religion". There is a link to the lecture in my very first blog entry (you may want to consider finding the low-quality video on YT so you can see what everyone is laughing at).

[M@RS]

So Achilles your signature has to do with the Islamic Faith?

[Achilles]

My signature has to do with how ridiculous science would look if it behaved like religion.

[M@RS]

Really? How?