A creationism challenge

[Mokele]

Just kidding. I have no idea what gametogenesis is but thought it was ironic coming from you (in my twisted way).

 

Damn, I didn't even notice that! Duh! (And gametogenesis is the process by which your body cells make gametes, namely sperm and eggs)

 

The Y-chromosome patrilineal MRCA is called Y-MRCA (it's fun to be in the..), I suppose the mitochondrial matrilineal MRCA could be called mt-MRCA.

 

...and this is why I usually preface anything I say about molecular studies with "it's not my field, but..."

 

Mokele

[ElijahJones]

Again, you are arguing against something that is not my position. You need to pick a fight with someone else.

 

 

Awww shucks!

[JC1]

I think macroevolution and creation are both meant to believe by faith because neither of them are observable, testable or verificable...etc. How can one observe, test something back in billions of years, and conclude it as a fact that chemical element -> simple organism -> complex organism -> common ancestors -> us and ape? (-> : evolve)

 

I think nobody has observed the macroevolution, just a microevolution only that result in different kinds of species (let's say fish, tilapia (fishes) remain a fish just different types). Thus, macroevolution is not a real scientific theory.

 

Plus, no matter how many evidences science come up with, i think all those physical gives proof of the spiritual. I mean things in this world and universe points towards God. Science eventually will catch up, the absolute truth, God's words. He never lies.

 

Just my opinion and it might be wrong too.

[Mokele]

I think macroevolution and creation are both meant to believe by faith because neither of them are observable, testable or verificable...etc.

 

Macroevolution is testable and verifiable, just look at the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts what we should and should not find, and it's right. For instance, I shouldn't find a chicken bone in a Cambrian sediment, and we haven't. I should find whales with hind limbs in the fossil record, and we do.

 

It's more than testable and verifiable; we can actually engage in detailed analysis of long-term (100's of millions of years) evolutionary trends (like the trend towards more rock-boring species of clams as crab pinchers got stronger).

 

How can one observe, test something back in billions of years, and conclude it as a fact that chemical element -> simple organism -> complex organism -> common ancestors -> us and ape?

 

The first part is a strawman. Evolution does *not* apply to abiogenesis. Normally we actually issue a warning for using that in an arguement, but I'll let it slide this time. Evolution only applies to life; where life came from is a totally different field and a totally different question (one I find terminally dull, but I'm not a big biochem fan).

 

As for the rest, the fossil record *amply* details those transitions.

 

I think nobody has observed the macroevolution, just a microevolution only that result in different kinds of species (let's say fish, tilapia (fishes) remain a fish just different types). Thus, macroevolution is not a real scientific theory.

 

Macroevolution *is* change between species. *Everything* above species if fiction; species is the only level of classification with something approaching biological reality. There is no such thing as a "genus" or "family", those are just words for groups of related species that we lump together in artificial boxes for ease of communication.

 

And we have observed change between species (macroevolution) abundantly.

 

Plus, no matter how many evidences science come up with, i think all those physical gives proof of the spiritual. I mean things in this world and universe points towards God. Science eventually will catch up, the absolute truth, God's words. He never lies.

 

1) Are you basically saying that you believe what you believe and nothing will ever change it? If so, why even argue?

 

2) Who says evolution contradicts God? Just because we know the mechanism doesn't mean it wasn't guided somehow, from within the mechanism itself. Just because we know the physics governing the flight of a baseball does not mean that nobody threw it.

 

Mokele

[ElijahJones]

Macroevolution is testable and verifiable

 

Come one now! By testable he obviously means by experiment and no evolution beyond microbes is not testable, it is inferred and is a strong inferrence given the apparent evidence. Verifiable, I'm not sure what he means, probably whether we can prove evolution is true and in fact no you cannot prove it is absolutely true. But it does appear to be the best theory based upon science and reason that fits the observations (fossils and limbs and...).

 

I am certain that if we could get a precise record of how evolution proceeded we would find many surprises. I am also pretty sure that evolution is the major force that has shaped life on earth within the constraints of the physical universe and the peculiar environments of earth. But it does not rise to the level of gravity or electromagnetism on the scale of scientific certainty, although it is more scientific than say economics for various reasons.

 

Interestingly we have come to a level of development where our actions are overriding or should I say altering the course that evolution would have taken humanity. An example might be: notice if you will that many humans today need glasses. In a world where eyesight was crucial to not being eaten people like me (I'm as blind as a bat) would not survive very well even in groups. The genes for poor eyesight, bad reflexes, obesity, cancer, probably many more would not survive. But they survive today because we have used our minds to overcome some of those frailties. So this leaves us with a very interesting question. How can evolution produce something that supercedes evolution?

 

 

EJ

[swansont]

Come one now! By testable he obviously means by experiment and no evolution beyond microbes is not testable, it is inferred and is a strong inferrence given the apparent evidence. Verifiable, I'm not sure what he means, probably whether we can prove evolution is true and in fact no you cannot prove it is absolutely true. But it does appear to be the best theory based upon science and reason that fits the observations (fossils and limbs and...).

 

What he means is moot, if what it does is incorrectly restrict what is considered scientific inquiry. There are plenty of examples in e.g. astronomy and cosmology where you obviously cannot control the subjects and repeat experiments. But that does not mean that things can't be studied scientifically.

 

I am certain that if we could get a precise record of how evolution proceeded we would find many surprises. I am also pretty sure that evolution is the major force that has shaped life on earth within the constraints of the physical universe and the peculiar environments of earth. But it does not rise to the level of gravity or electromagnetism on the scale of scientific certainty, although it is more scientific than say economics for various reasons.

 

Why do you feel that evolution is on less firm ground than gravity or E&M?

 

Interestingly we have come to a level of development where our actions are overriding or should I say altering the course that evolution would have taken humanity. An example might be: notice if you will that many humans today need glasses. In a world where eyesight was crucial to not being eaten people like me (I'm as blind as a bat) would not survive very well even in groups. The genes for poor eyesight' date=' bad reflexes, obesity, cancer, probably many more would not survive. But they survive today because we have used our minds to overcome some of those frailties. So this leaves us with a very interesting question. How can evolution produce something that supercedes evolution?

 

 

EJ[/quote']

 

We haven't superceded evolution. We've reduced selection pressure. Also, afflictions that tend to strike in middle-age or later have a lot less selection pressure on them - it's likely you've already passed your genes along; in a world where life expectancy was ~35 years for a long time, a problem that hits when you're 40+ hasn't had much chance to be subject to whatever selection pressure is there.

[Mokele]

As swansont points out, many other sciences suffer from limitations, but that does not mean they are untestable. There are multiple ways to "test" a theory, and direct experiment is only one such method.

 

For instance, at one point there was a theory that selenodont artiodactyls (deer, goats, cows; the ruminants) were, over evolutionary time, replacing the non-ruminating perisodactyls like horses and tapirs, on account of supposed digestive superiority (the idea that ruminants can extract more nutrition from their food). This theory is not testable by direct experiment, but it was tested in two ways. First, experiments were conducted on existing ruminants and perisodactyls to determine what the actual digestive efficiencies were. Second, numerous fossil strata and localities were compared, and the presence of genera of each group counted for each time period. The replacement hypothesis predicted that there would a detectable difference in digestive efficiency and that for every increase in ruminant species, the perisodactyl species would decline. The theory failed both tests: Digestive efficiency was not influenced to a detectable level by ancestry, and both groups rose and declined together, probably due to environmental factors.

 

So it is very possible to test macroevolutionary hypotheses, including macroevolution itself.

 

Mokele

[imasmartgirl]

I think macroevolution and creation are both meant to believe by faith because neither of them are observable' date=' testable or verificable...etc. How can one observe, test something back in billions of years, and conclude it as a fact that chemical element -> simple organism -> complex organism -> common ancestors -> us and ape? (-> : evolve)

 

I think nobody has observed the macroevolution, just a microevolution only that result in different kinds of species (let's say fish, tilapia (fishes) remain a fish just different types). Thus, macroevolution is not a real scientific theory.

 

Plus, no matter how many evidences science come up with, i think all those physical gives proof of the spiritual. I mean things in this world and universe points towards God. Science eventually will catch up, the absolute truth, God's words. He never lies.

 

Just my opinion and it might be wrong too.[/quote']

 

 

isn't macroevolution just microevolution over a longer period of time? Every animal split into different types a long time ago cause of distance and evolved separate of each other. It takes a long long long time to go from one species to another and the ancestors are so well blended that there is no clear line to when exactly they are fully a different species. But after a species splits off into different group and breeds in different areas, soon they will no longer be able to breed with eachother again because their DNA won't match. There are all kinds of things that will influence evolution, natural selection, environment, predators, food available and how much, competition for territory, weather, diseases, ect. watch some of the videos on here

they talk about DNA and how it works. Watch at least the 1st one and the one called Genetic Variation.

[ElijahJones]

I'm starting to get the vibe that you guys have this all figured out. Mokele you example is a good one but it does not need to be esoterically worded (not saying it is). Basically you collected data on current populations, then you used a theory to assume some traits of fossil population and then you looked at the fitted curve that seemed most reasonable or you used an ANOVA test to determine whether the treatment between two samples was significant or the change over time was moving in the direction your theory suggested. I have never said I don't believe evolution is happening or that it is not happening largely as we believe.

 

However inference from data is almost always less certain when you have less data. So those parts of physics that do not allow mucho data are less certain. The fossil record is vast by some estimates but scant in other important ways (don't ask me to say how I read it a while ago) so evolution is probably less certain (some claims at least) than gravity which is constantly observed.

 

So my point is that inference can be rational and therefore sharp or it can be statistical and therefore a little broad, but rational models are not valid unless they can be significantly linked to real world data. This requires statistics and hypothesis tests and confidence intervals.

 

What I would not mind seeing is a list of the top five reasons why evolution matters to a world with so many troubles. Economists (at least a few of whom I know by the way) can say that supply and demand will affect the amount of money in my wallet. What does evolution have to offer to humanity today?

 

[swansont]

What I would not mind seeing is a list of the top five reasons why evolution matters to a world with so many troubles. Economists (at least a few of whom I know by the way) can say that supply and demand will affect the amount of money in my wallet. What does evolution have to offer to humanity today?

 

 

As the cornerstone of biology, it is at the heart of biomedical research. New drugs and other treatments for illnesses. Good enough?

[Mokele]

How about human society itself, which is entirely a product of the evolution that gave us our big brains?

 

Mokele

[ElijahJones]

Ok, ok its important. So you are saying Swansont that there are say biological systems that because we think we know how they have evolved we can better predict which medications will work to treat illness? I am a little vague on the specific way that a knowledge of evolution is essential to our current goals of desease prevention, the advancement of medicine, understanding the human genome (which will probably not evolve in the time we are going to be putzing with it). In general isn't it kind of like saying that cosmology and GR are essential to a civil engineer. They are not, Newton works just fine.

 

Yes, Mokele, some process gave us our big brain that lead to our social tendencies and development. Is knowing what that process was and exactly how it happened essential to understanding human society? I can see where it might be important if evolution were seen to constrain certain needed social changes.

 

I will write down two questions in order of their importance and then expect a nice tongue lashing, but at least we are having a healthy debate.

 

1) What exists right now and how does it work?

2) What is the relationship between the past, present and future?

 

So if we cannot give at least one specific reason for spending lots of money and time on broad elegant theories maybe we should stick to number one.

 

Do you have one specific example of how evolutionary studies are currently essential to a real world problem affecting the immediate future of mankind?

 

Remember I do believe in evolution as a process that is acting now as surely as I believe that there are black holes gobbling up galaxies somewhere in the universe. I am just not entirely convinced that it should be anything near to a research priority at this moment in time or that it should become the premise of some type of reverse witch-hunt among people whose knowledge of it is useless to them. They donlt get it, they want their kids raised to think the earth is six thousand years old, good. As long as their kids contribute to society by pulling levers down at the local factory, more power to them. Let ID, GD, SD, MD all be options on the school plate. Those who are evolutionarily suited to grasping the truth will get it. Or can we thwart evolution by teaching our kids they are cheerios and the world is a bowl of milk?

 

I think my point comes out pretty clear. Mess with the natives long enough and you eventually find out that you are outnumbered the natives breed much faster than you do.

 

Cheers,

 

EJ

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

Why do you feel that evolution is on less firm ground than gravity or E&M?

 

.

 

Evolution makes more assumptions. I'm sure all these assumptions are much closer to 100% than 99.9% (for the principles, not the details) but that has to still leave Evolution with many many times the "doubt" (small as it is) than gravity or E&M.

 

Compare Evolution to the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure your confidence level of both is pretty high (closer to 100% than 99% for the Big Bang IIRC from a previous thread). But would agree that the "doubt" for the BBT is much greater than for Evolution?

[swansont]

Evolution makes more assumptions. I'm sure all these assumptions are much closer to 100% than 99.9% (for the principles' date=' not the details) but that has to still leave Evolution with many many times the "doubt" (small as it is) than gravity or E&M.

 

Compare Evolution to the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure your confidence level of both is pretty high (closer to 100% than 99% for the Big Bang IIRC from a previous thread). But would agree that the "doubt" for the BBT is much greater than for Evolution?[/quote']

 

Newtonian gravity has been supplanted by general relativity. The problem is that nobody has been able to confirm the existence of gravity waves, which is the supposed mechanism. We see the rotation of galaxies, but it's wrong based on the mass we can observe, so we hypothesize "dark matter." The Pioneer probes show an anomalous acceleration as they move out of the solar system. One can make the argument that gravity is on less firm footing than evolution, and yet I doubt anyone is willing to jump off a building with the idea that gravity is wrong.

[Severian]

At which point you give up, because it's not falsifiable and thus not science.

 

That doesn't mean that it is wrong of course - just that it is not useful from a scientific perspective.

[Hellbender]

What I would not mind seeing is a list of the top five reasons why evolution matters to a world with so many troubles. Economists (at least a few of whom I know by the way) can say that supply and demand will affect the amount of money in my wallet. What does evolution have to offer to humanity today?

I'm sorry to go back to this, but this bugged me. First of all, a science does not have to be immediately useful to warrant inquiry. I can't think of many applications for the science of astronomy, does this make it any less an interesting and worthy science? Evidently not, since every university has an Astonomy class. Second, evolutionary principles can and are put to good use. As well as being a cornerstone of modern biology (as Swansont noted), here is a short list of some of its applications:

 

Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:

• Bioinformatics' date=' a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
  [*']Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
  
• Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
  
• Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
  
• Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Hope this helps. Sorry if I derailed this otherwise good discussion.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Newtonian gravity has been supplanted by general relativity. The problem is that nobody has been able to confirm the existence of gravity waves, which is the supposed mechanism. We see the rotation of galaxies, but it's wrong based on the mass we can observe, so we hypothesize "dark matter." The Pioneer probes show an anomalous acceleration as they move out of the solar system. One can make the argument that gravity is on less[/i'] firm footing than evolution, and yet I doubt anyone is willing to jump off a building with the idea that gravity is wrong.

 

I have to agree. I was thinking of gravity more in terms of the newtonian low speed approximation gravity that "survived" as a subset of GR, and imperfect as it may be, still has a firmer footing than GR albeit in a much more limited scope.

 

There is probably a "fat gray line" between proving a theory imperfect or wrong.

 

As for GR vs Evolution:

 

Ironic that the guy jumping off the building to prove gravity wrong ends up with the "Darwin Award".

[ElijahJones]

I'm sorry to go back to this, but this bugged me. First of all, a science does not have to be immediately useful to warrant inquiry. I can't think of many applications for the science of astronomy, does this make it any less an interesting and worthy science? Evidently not, since every university has an Astonomy class.

 

The points are good ones, thanks that settles that it has application in the real world. Astronomy also has application in the real world but not every venture of astronomy is essential. My point is that science should not roll of on mad adventure of useless inquiry when we have so many real world problems that need to be addresed. I know all the arguments about how you never know what might tutrn out to be important and all that, yes.

 

Oh, your argument that because so many universities have astronomy departments implies that astronomy must be practically applicable is not correct.

 

Astronomy is useful though, cosmology is not a necessary study, not unless you can convince me that the Earth's imminent demise is at stake. Anyways I am not going to argue. We all have our little things that are 'SO' important. I'll check back in the Spring and see how you guys are getting on.

 

Good Luck,

 

EJ

[swansont]

The points are good ones' date=' thanks that settles that it has application in the real world. Astronomy also has application in the real world but not every venture of astronomy is essential. My point is that science should not roll of on mad adventure of useless inquiry when we have so many real world problems that need to be addresed. I know all the arguments about how you never know what might tutrn out to be important and all that, yes.

 

Oh, your argument that because so many universities have astronomy departments implies that astronomy must be practically applicable is not correct.

 

Astronomy is useful though, cosmology is not a necessary study, not unless you can convince me that the Earth's imminent demise is at stake. Anyways I am not going to argue. We all have our little things that are 'SO' important. I'll check back in the Spring and see how you guys are getting on.

 

Good Luck,

 

EJ[/quote']

 

That reminds me of something I saw on "The West Wing" a few years back: "[G]reat achievement has no road map. The X-ray's pretty good. So is penicillin. Neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And now, we have an entire world run by electronics. Haydn and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them."

 

You can never tell what is going to be discovered. So you should never stop looking.