Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

elfstone · December 3, 2005

It is my general belief that all knowledge which exists is first tainted by various existential presuppositions. I suggest that our 'knowledge' of the existence of physical matter is first based upon a certain level of presupposition.

For example: I believe the table and the chair around me to be physical. And why do I believe this? I believe this because this is what my five physical senses tell me. However' date=' my observations nonetheless are first tainted by the presupposition of a physical universe around me. The fact is that none of my observations are purely free of presupposition. I will only come to the conclusion that there is a physical universe around me if I am willing to rely on my five senses to instruct me in this. However, my five senses may actually be off, contrary to what I have 'learned' from youth.

Now this line of reasoning may sound absurd to you, but I suggest that it has a basis which you simply may or may not have deeply explored. I suggest that the universe is not so physical as we may have entertained. The five senses have 'tricked' us, and there are many things which exist within the context of a multidimensional universe that our five senses have not yet existentially noticed.[/quote']

So, what exactly are you saying? Will our five senses ever detect these other things or they are simply unable to? If it is the first case, then these things will be categorized as physical and thus will be under scientific explanation. If it is the second case, there is no point in speculating about them because they will be undetected forever. So, you see, your suggestion/hypothesis/general belief is quite useless and borders on solipsism.

This is quite exactly what I am saying' date=' except that I am not referring to green cheese. Rather, I am referring to the existence of a multidimensional universe, which upon more deeply glimpsing it's metaphysical nature, will render many of our physical 'evidences' void, or at least altered.[/quote']

How will that happen exactly? The physical "evidences" we have so far have helped us accomplish things like discussing with each other while thousands of miles apart. Evolution theory is having real and helpful applications in medicine and even robotics. If anything is going to change about the evidence, will not change the basics that are established. It will also not be of "metaphysical" nature. I'm not sure what you mean with this word anyway, if it is going to affect the physical world, then it is something physical.

I could go on further' date=' but I first wish to ascertain if we are communicating at this point. Does any of this make sense to you thus far? I'm delving into metaphysical realms to be sure. I'm not attempting to be condescending, and I may even sound naive. I'm simply not aware if you value or have explored some of these other realms.[/quote']

The fact that you deny that our five senses can grasp this metaphysical realm, yet you support its existence, implies that somehow you possess something more than the five senses the rest of us have. If this is not the case, then the supposition for the existence of a metaphysical realm beyond our senses can only be justified for explaining something that it is NOT beyond our senses. However, when there are explanations of a physical nature that even have useful applications in our lives, then this supposition is rendered useless.

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

Observation alone, perhaps. We're talking observation within the context of the scientific method.

And precisely what is the 'scientific method' as you define it?

A theory must be a testable explanation of all the evidence

I suggest that you do not have all of the evidence for any theory whatsoever.

or why it doesn't explain a particular piece of contradictory evidence.

Please elaborate.

No, evolution has been observed repeatedly.

Please define 'evolution' as you are using the term. You seem to have had a disagreement just a few posts prior about what evolution actually is.

Bottom line: Evolution has been observed.

Evolution is a theory. Theories are not observed. They are postulated. Rather, evidences are observed.

God has not.

How do you know?

Here's some material for you to look up and mull over before you continue this line of questioning. Kudos to lucaspa for this list.

Yikes, did you read the opening post? I appreciate the info and the links (one link is disconnected and two others require private account access which I don't have), but I would much prefer if you would prioritize two or three of the most important items and reprint them here. And then please tell me how you're interpreting the specific data.

This list details observed events of macroevolution (i.e. speciation):

General

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species

http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.

34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."

7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).

10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).

11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).

12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).

13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).

14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms

1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus

1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect

1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.

2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have

originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle

Ages[3].

[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.

[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.

[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,

W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record

1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely find fossil record.

2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

Overkill

20. Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

21. Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

24. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

25. de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

26. de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

27. de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

28. Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

42. Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

43. Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

44. Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

45. Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

46. Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

47. Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

48. Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

49. Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

50. Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

51. Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

52. Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

53. Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

54. Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

55. Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

56. Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

57. Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

58. Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

59. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

60. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

61. McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

62. Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

63. Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

64. Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

65. Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

67. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

68. Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

69. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

70. Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

71. Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

72. Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

21. Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in _Epilobium angustifolium_

(Onaagraceae)", _Evolution_ 21:713-719

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome

count, from the original stock.

23. Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection

appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.

24. Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible? Yes. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991

25. Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

26. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

27. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two methods for speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

30. Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

31. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation leading to speciation in Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

32. Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

34. Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation examples?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

Thanks much but this is a bit much for now. Prioritize and condense please.

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

hmmm........fossil record, genetic evidence, observed speciation....just off the top of my head

One or two examples, please? Something digestible.

We've observed evolution, both within species and speciation. We've experimentally tested evolutionary theory, both in the lab and in manipulative field studies.

One or two examples, please? Something digestible.

Could it be replaced, sure. But only by "evolution version 2.0", since any new theory must take into account all observations and experimental data of the prior theory (plus any new data that lead to the rejection of the prior theory).

I suggest that there are many presently existing theories that do not take into account the theory of evolution, or vice versa. Nothing new actually needed in many cases. Humanity hasn't fully meshed together the different fields of knowledge as it is.

In short, because of lots and lots of evidence.

And what specifically constitutes 'valid' evidence? How do you know if a piece of evidence is, in fact, valid?

Mokele

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

You seem to be asking for proof that evolution is more than it is. Evolution is simply a theory about the various change and adaptation of species over time. It is not necessarily a theory about the origin of life. Aside from questions like' date=' "how did life begin?", we know that adaptive and mutative changes happen in species without doubt; it is a fact. A new flu vaccine is needed every year as a result such change; the flu evolves, no doubt about it.

On questions like "how did life begin?", "where did we come from?", "why are we here?", the answer is "we don't know". The theory of evolution does not claim to provide proof of any answers for such questions like some postulate. These are the questions that much of the alleged "evolution vs creation" debate boils down to. Scientists say, "we don't know", creationists say "god did it". Objectively now, which group can claim they are undoubtedly correct, the "we don't know"s or the "god did it"s?[/quote']Is the theory of evolution related at all with the big bang theory? If evolutionists do not claim to have the answers concerning the origins of life, then where specifically lies the conflict in the evolutionist versus creationist debate? Is it just comparing apples and oranges? Is there no true point of conflict?

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

is it just me, or does this thread smack of the "it's only a theory. a logical explanation that fits observations and is backed by massive amounts of evidence is only as good as an inconsistant belief based on ancient mythology and must be accepted by faith. so, what's the difference?" fallacy?

Was there a specific question or statement of mine that got you so hot here? Or are you just carrying over a bad experience from another thread somewhere? I hope you don't mind if I press strict and critical observation of the evidences.

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

That is basically correct, yes. Nothing is inherently superior or more evolved than anything else. Natural selection is just the tendency for those traits which lead to more children to be passed on. It's very intuitive when you think about it - nothing magic about it. In an environment where an organism doesn't need strength to rpocure food, mate, or protect its young, big muscles just become wasted resources. In our society, where intelligence has a minimum effect on survival value and no effect on ability to procure a mate, high intelligence is no advantage, because it doesn't result in more offspring. In fact, it's actually a disadvantage, evolutionarily speaking, since more intelligent people tend to find reasons NOT to have children.

I'd have to agree with all of your points here in this particular post. I'm not so much here to debate as I'm here to learn. Although I may present alternate perspectives which some may feel a need to attack or debate. I prefer constructive discussion, however. I often find both the fundamentalist and the scientific communites to be very narrow-minded. They often have the same temperament as far as I'm concerned, if one voices an alternate perspective which is not consistent with their own.

doG · December 4, 2005

Is the theory of evolution related at all with the big bang theory?

No. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory.

Is the theory of evolution related at all with the big bang theory? If evolutionists do not claim to have the answers concerning the origins of life, then where specifically lies the conflict in the evolutionist versus creationist debate? Is it just comparing apples and oranges? Is there no true point of conflict?

Creationists are offended that mankind may have evolved from an earlier life form. Science does not claim this as a fact even though it does claim that there is enough avidence to claim that some evolution is a fact. Creationists tend to believe that it's strictly black and white, either there was creation or there is evolution. Scientists know better. We can only theorize about things we can't proof by proffering hypotheses based on our observations. Then again, creationists even get antsy about hypotheses that suggest any possibility that man was not created, they tend to be very close-minded.

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

Sure, and consciousness is an "environmentally-stimulated analysis algorithm"

In part, though not entirely.

(and hey, so is evolution!)

"more accurately"? No, I don't think so at all...

I don't believe that we're communicating.

Sure it is. More accurate than "the improvement of species over time towards some goal of higher-evolved, superior beings?" Of course it's more accurate.

Fully agreed.

Mokele · December 4, 2005

When I refer to degeneration, I'm referring to 'atrophy' versus adaptation. For example, is it possible for a species to become dumber, weaker, uglier, etc. if there be a lack of environmental modifiers? In other words, if a harsh environment will cause a species to adapt, will that same species devolve if placed back into a plush environment that offers no adaptive rigor? Sort of like when an athlete stops training at the gym, or a scholar ceases from their studies for many long years.

Like just about everything, there's no simple answer, because it depends on the trait or system you're talking about. Some traits will remain even if unneeded due to constraints based in developmental biology; if the loss of the now-useless trait would cause major problems in systems that as linked to it via the genes controlling embryonic development, it'll remain.

However, if such constraints don't exist for the trait in question, then one of two things could happen if there's no selection acting to preserve the trait. First, the trait could become subject to genetic drift, which is basically the effects of randomness of evolution. It might stay the same, it might change shape, it might be lost, it might even become more prominent, all by luck of the draw. The second possibility is more likely: without selection maintaining it, the trait is useless but also costs energy to grow and maintain. As such, any organism lack or with a reduced version of the trait will have an energetic advantage over its fellows. As a result, selection will act to eliminate the now-useless trait.

I may be sounding ridiculous with my ideas and questions, but I'm honestly trying to learn. I've been told bad things about evolution by religionists for many years, but then I found major problems with religious doctrines also since then. And now I just want the truth. Religionists have misrepresented evolution to me in order to debunk it.

Sadly, that's their primary tactic, because understanding evolution makes it obvious. It's reported that Huxley, one of Darwin's strongest advocates at the time, responded to the pre-release version of Origin of Species that Darwin sent him seeking his input with "How utterly stupid of me not to have thought of it first!".

Okay. So it's all environment-specific adaptation. And some environments are harsher while others are softer.

Or just different.

Take, for example, the transition between vertebrate life on land and life in the water. In the water, animals have to constantly worry about losing salts that keep their body working, while on land, they worry more about losing water. Respiration is easier on land (more oxygen per ml, air is easier to move across respiratory surfaces than water), but just moving around takes a *lot* more energy without the support of water. In the water, you don't need t bother much with temperature regulation, because the whole stream is more-or-less the same temperature (with some variation in shore versus middle), while there ca be tremendous variation from place to place in temperature on land (think of the difference between on top of a sun-warmed rock and in the dirt beneath it). This means land animals need to pay closer attention to their body temperature, but unlike fish, they can move between very different temperature locations to regulate it (whereas if the lake gets too hot, the fish can't escape).

Basically, most of evolution is the story of how different traits and strategies work for different environments. The numerous extinctions every time the climate changes (think of the KT event that killed the dinosaurs) attest to the fact that there's no single "optimal" strategy for all environments.

So then I may more accurately interpret 'evolution' as being 'environmentally-stimulated adaptation'? Is this correct? A species is not necessarily any greater than what it was before, but merely different. In an extreme sense then, a fish may 'evolve' into a bird, or a bird may 'evolve' into a fish. Wings turn into fins or vise versa. Please forgive me if I'm skewing some of the information here.

Pretty much; flying fish and penguins. Water has high drag (as I'm sure you've noiced whenever you've been swimming), so animals in the sea which move fast tend to have similar streamlining (as a result of physics). Sharks, dolphins and the extinct ichtyosaurs all look grossly similar because they've evolved to be fast-moving aquatic predators.

But a bird will never *truly* become a fish. Notice how dolphins move their tails up and down rather than side-to-side like sharks. Most mammal locomotion is similar; watch a cheetah run and you'll see what I mean. Even though the dolphin is adapting to the same role, it's constrained by it's past history.

For example: I believe the table and the chair around me to be physical. And why do I believe this? I believe this because this is what my five physical senses tell me. However, my observations nonetheless are first tainted by the presupposition of a physical universe around me. The fact is that none of my observations are purely free of presupposition. I will only come to the conclusion that there is a physical universe around me if I am willing to rely on my five senses to instruct me in this. However, my five senses may actually be off, contrary to what I have 'learned' from youth.

Now this line of reasoning may sound absurd to you, but I suggest that it has a basis which you simply may or may not have deeply explored. I suggest that the universe is not so physical as we may have entertained. The five senses have 'tricked' us, and there are many things which exist within the context of a multidimensional universe that our five senses have not yet existentially noticed.

True, but imagine if, to use a trivial example, our vision of colors is the reverse of what they "really" are. Does it matter at all? Blue is still blue, because 'blue' is just a word we have for what we see. If my blue and your blue are the same, does whatever else is out there truly matter? If we can't detect that other level, then whether it exists or doesn't exist is totally irrelevant.

This is why science has proven to be so much more successful than philosophy (just look at the departmental budgets). Science basically said "if it's not observable, why care about it?", and abandoned the use of pure deduction in favor of induction and empiricism. After all, even if what we see and science analyzes isn't "the truth", it's what affects us as humans and our experiences, and is therefore both more important and more useful.

This is quite exactly what I am saying, except that I am not referring to green cheese. Rather, I am referring to the existence of a multidimensional universe, which upon more deeply glimpsing it's metaphysical nature, will render many of our physical 'evidences' void, or at least altered.

But it all comes back to observability. If there is no evidence for these other dimensions, and they are not empiricially observable, then a) there's no reason to suppose they exist and b) even if they do exist, they don't matter, since they have no observable effect on anything.

Now, if they *do* become observable, then we have to change things, and science does that all the time. Newton came up with some ideas. His ideas were nice but not complete, and future observations lead to relativity and quantum mechanics. Now we know that *those* ideas don't work perfectly, and so physics is investing a lot of effort into finding a replacement theory (the "theory of everything" or "grand unified theory").

Had the moon truly been made of cheese, Neil's first words would likely have been "Whoa, it feels all squishy", and we would have proceeded to re-evalute all known data in the face of this discovery.

What makes science such a powerful tool for understanding the universe is that it's inherently tentative and self-correcting. Making a theory is the best way to get your name in the scientific history books, but destroying one is the second-best, and is far easier, so if the opportunity arrises, lots of people will leap at such an opportunity.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with radioactive half-lives. Are you deeming this an accurate method of longterm fossil dating?

Yes. We've check radiometric dating quite thoroughly, by dating things which we *know* when they occured (like the eruption at Vesuvius which destroyed Pompei), and checking them against each other. The chances *all* of the dozens of methods are wrong in precisely the same way for all the points they agree on is so infinitesimally tiny that it's not worth considering.

This leaves a certain amount of room for the theory that human beings did not actually evolve from apes. For example, when we track back history to it's earliest recorded stages, a strange phenomenon occurs. There is a point where ancient history actually converts into mythology. And in the ancient mythologies, it was more commonly believed that both apes and humans had descended from 'celestial gods', and that both apes and humans are currently in a mere state of mortal infancy.

Except that myth is just that, myth. In contrast, we can look as the anatomy, genetics, development, physiology, biochemistry and behaviors of humans and apes and note that they're very, very, very similar. We can also look at the fossil record and actually see the physical remains of the transition.

History leaves its imprint on things. We can infer from the fact that people in the US speak English that the English were a dominant colonizing force. We can do the same with animals.

An excellent example is dead viri. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into that cell, and the DNA becomes part of the cell's genetic code, commandeering it to produce more viri rather than whatever else it was supposed to be doing. But sometimes viri get mutations just like us, and the virus DNA gets in, but then fails to work properly. If it infects the right sort of cell, this "dead virus DNA" is inherited by the offspring of that individual. The human genome is littered with these things, as are the genomes of apes. Most importantly, though, humans and apes share many such dead viri at *exactly* the same location in the genome. The propability of two independent infection events that result in these dead virial DNA areas being in the same location is so remote as to be inconsequential.

Furthermore, there's a pattern to it. There's a certain set shared by all apes (including us), presumabily inherited from the common ancestor. But then some are shared by all apes (including humans) except gibbons, then some shared by all except gibbons and organutans, then some shared only by chimps, humans and gorillas, then some only shared by chimps and humans. Some are unique to each species. Some are shared only by the two species of chimps or several species of gibbons.

The take-home message is that the probability of this pattern occuring (and, incidentally, precisely matching patterns of evolution inferred by other means) by any method other than shared common ancestry is so remote that it doesn't warrant serious consideration.

And precisely what is the 'scientific method' as you define it?

Ask a question

Form a hypothesis (tentative answer)

Devise a prediction of this hypothesis wich can be tested and shown to be consistent or inconsistent with the data

Test the hypothesis

Analyze data

Accept or reject hypothesis based on data

Repeat testing.

An example:

What color are the balls in this bag?

I think they're all blue

I can pull some out, and look at them. If they're all blue, I'm right, if any are red, I'm wrong (note that sampl size is statistically very important, and thus much of modern science is expressed in statistical terms)

I take some balls out, and one is red.

My hypothesis is wrong

Make new hypothesis: balls are red and blue

repeat cycle.

I suggest that you do not have all of the evidence for any theory whatsoever.

All, no. Enough, yes. Consider the balls example above. If I have a bag of 100 balls, and I hypothesize they're all blue, how can I test that? Well, I could just empty them all out, but what if that's not possible? What if I can only look at one ball at a time, then put it back and mix up the bag?

This is where statistics comes into play. Science does *not* offer 100% answers. But it *can* say, "We picked 100,000 times from this bag, and thus the chances that we missed a non-blue ball are less than 0.000000001%, and therefore insignificant".

How statistically significant your results must be depends on the field of science. 95% is pretty universally accepted, considering all the difficulties of actual experiments (measurement error, animal behavior, contaminants, etc).

Please define 'evolution' as you are using the term. You seem to have had a disagreement just a few posts prior about what evolution actually is.

Technically, the biological definition is "Change in gene frequency in a population over time". Bascule uses a different one, to incorportate technological evolution.

Evolution is a theory. Theories are not observed. They are postulated. Rather, evidences are observed.

But theories are supported by evidence. In science "Theory" refers to a postulated idea which was tested and confirmed. That doesn't mean it's involate, only that what evidence we have supports it.

Also, evolution is also an evidence. We observe the phenomenon of evolution all the time (see antibiotic resistence in bacteria). That sense of "evolution" is a fact. The theory of evolution is how we explain the evolution we see (change in gene frequency over time).

Think of it like gravity: there's the phenomenon (dropping an apple) and the theory (superstrings, gravitrons, spacetime curvature) of why it happens.

One or two examples, please? Something digestible.

We have a very nice sequence of fossils showing whale evolution (just google 'whale evolution'), and we've observed speciation caused by reproductive isolation in a group of flies who lay their eggs in cacti. One population developed a mutation to allow them to lay in a formerly toxic cactus, and eventually actually became dependent on the toxin as a metabolic source of a particular nutrient. As a result, this population can no longer mix genes with the other populations.

Usually, speciation takes longer, but flies have such short generation times that it becomes practical to observe. We've got some more inferential stuff from various fish, particularly sticklebacks and cichlids, but we haven't observed the entire process in those, just the current state and we know when they became isolated.

I suggest that there are many presently existing theories that do not take into account the theory of evolution, or vice versa. Nothing new actually needed in many cases. Humanity hasn't fully meshed together the different fields of knowledge as it is.

Yes, but if those theories say nothing about evolution, they don't need to take it into account. Any theory which *does*, no matter how distant from biology, must take it into account. This goes for all science. I actually have a friend who's head of the philosophy department here, and his primary passion is destroying philosophical "theories of the mind" which are based on neurobiology that's been subsequently overturned (in essence, the philosophical theories are based on old information, and he points out new information that proves them wrong).

No coherent theory can simply ignore evidence concerning it. To use my bag of balls example, that's like saying they're all blue even if I see someone else pull an red ball from the same bag.

And what specifically constitutes 'valid' evidence? How do you know if a piece of evidence is, in fact, valid?

Observation. If I run genetic tests on the stickleback fish mentioned above, that's evidence (unless I did it wrong, which is why all science papers have a section describing the materials and methods used to get the data).

To return yet again to the bag of balls, every ball I pull out is evidence. It's only not evidence if you can show I palmed the ball and replaced it with a fake or somesuch.

Is the theory of evolution related at all with the big bang theory? If evolutionists do not claim to have the answers concerning the origins of life, then where specifically lies the conflict in the evolutionist versus creationist debate? Is it just comparing apples and oranges? Is there no true point of conflict?

Not at all. Evolution is totally independent of the big bang and abiogenesis. Whether the universe was always here, made by god, or made by the big bag doesn't matter at all to evolution. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether life arose from the slime, was made by god, or was left by aliens, all that matters to evolution is that there is life which mutates, reproduces, and has heritable differences in reproductive/survival sucess.

---------------------

As a side-note, SFN often gets creationists who *aren't* interested in learning, but rather in just spouting off their views no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. This has generated a lot of ill-will towards creationism, as such actions are disruptive to the environment we try to maintain. So basically, don't take it personally if you get some harsh responses; we've not only learned that creationism usually means flaming, poor logic, and intellectual dishonesty, we've actually had to take a firm administrative stance against it because it was so disruptive and damaging.

Threads like this, where someone with legitimate questions about science and evolution asks for information and discussion, are why I've always backed off on the idea of totally banning it, no matter how frustrating less well-conducted threads become. Threads like this provide a golden opportunity to fulfill SFNs core objective of eductation and information.

So basically, I'd like to say that I'm glad you're taking an open approach to this subject, and I'll help in any way I can (within the time I have).

Mokele

~Agnostic~ · December 4, 2005

It's also because it's logically consistent with everything you've ever experienced.

This is not entirely true. Rather, it may be logically consistent with everything that you've ever personally and directly experienced. But this does not hold true for perhaps about 1-10% of the human population. Even though you may assume that it does.

Yay, Kantian Empiricism. I really hate Kant.

In part, but something more also. Do you understand Kant?

You know, it's the associations you make that are important, not the sensory data itself.

How do you know that the associations are entirely correct? I suggest that they are most often off to some large degree.

Logical inconsistencies in sensory data would serve as evidence that you are being deceived by your senses.

Correct. But I suggest that much of this deception lies in the assumed physicality of this 'material' world.

If you haven't experienced any, I think any presupposition of deception is greatly outweighed by the logical consistency of the universe.

But many have indeed experienced inconsistencies. And, breaking through those inconsistencies, have since come to a greater understanding of the logical consistency of the universe. Albeit, they have not been relegated to the same existential conclusions which you have come to.

Yes

The reason that this line of reasoning seems absurd to you is because it is diametrically opposed to your belief system. You may even view this line of reasoning to be inferior to your own, but I suggest any such notion is merely based on an ignorance of metaphysical concepts.

No, I just think you don't have a healthy respect for the logical consistency of the universe.

Now you're jumping to assumed conclusions. I suggest that I have a healthier respect for the logical consistency of the universe than you do yourself. I view your knowledge as very incomplete, and therefore littered with interpretational error.

Evidence?

According to what criteria?

Evidence?

According to what criteria?

Possibly, the string theorists say something to this effect.

You're projecting.

Have you actually read anything about string theory? Probably not. So this is all just bullshit.

You have an animosity for non-string theorists, I see. Although you have yourself somehow assumed that I should be studied in string theory. You have merely subjectively confused string theory with some of the perspectives which I have presented. This is because you have jumped to conclusions within the context of limited observations.

Yeah, early humans were pretty ****ing stupid.

Now that's just a stupid thing for you to say, insofar as it conveys an ignorance of the cyclical expansion of consciousness inherent within the human species over several millennia.

Much of the ancient knowledge had been lost from the earth due to weaknesses in historical recording methods. Subsequent to this ancient loss of knowledge, the human species went into a downsurge of consciousness, with a more recent super-compensatory upsurge within the technological era. I'm speaking of knowledge which was entertained prior to well-recorded history.

However, the knowledge of the present day scientist, as precious as it is, represents a certain amount of ignorance of the metaphysical consciousness, which was formerly possessed by ancients prior to commonly-accepted recorded history. Eventually, scientists will relearn what was lost from ancient times, but they have a way to go. Currently however, scientists simply don't have all of the facts. Not because they don't exist, but because they were lost from ancients times, and are merely waiting to be rediscovered.

Your theory? Maybe in the Michael Behe definition which says that astrology is a theory.

I have not referenced astrology. You're again projecting mis-associations. Your observation falls short.

Your theory must be an explanation built around some kind of evidence.

It is. But I am persuaded that you have never actually seen the evidence. I further doubt your willingness and/or capacity to observe such evidence without prejudice, if in fact you ever had the privilege of becoming exposed to it. For your presuppositions would likely mar your interpretation of it, if ever you directly encountered such evidences.

String theory, for example, explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces, something which you can verify experimentally by standing up and noting how powerless gravity is to pull you down against the massive strength of the electromagnetic and strong force connections within your body. Of course we've verified the same thing through countless scientific experiments which have been able to gauge the exact strengths of the four forces relative to each other.

In what way do you believe that string theory has anything to do with what I have presented? How specifically is this relevant to our conversation?

Obviously.

Only if first strained through narrow-minded presupposition.

Science has made the world more clear to our species than any other investigative approach.

Evidence please, if any. Or at least a theory? Is your statement strictly referring to technological advances? Or something else?

Uh huh. So you're saying that you think there's some metaphysical bullshit which can explain the universe more accurately than science, eh?

That will show us that the entire universe is just an elaborate deception!

You're projecting your presuppositions again. Firstly, from your statement here, you believe metaphysics to be 'bullshit' as you term it. I interpret your stance as quite similar to that narrow-mindedness which is also common among creationist fundamentalists.

Every realm of study has individuals whom we may term to be 'orthodox fundamentalists', whether in religious or scientific realms. These individuals convert theory into doctrine, and doctrine into law. Then, if such doctrines and/or laws become resisted by new and/or ancient thought (for the new and the ancient are often each incomplete without the other), then retaliations often ensue against the alternate thought system upon it's mere presentation. Because alternate thought systems are different, it is therefore often falsely assumed that they are oppository to the fundamentalist's own belief system.

No.

I also stand quite assured that we are not communicating. Your prejudices will amplify this.

Absolutely not. It smells like male bovie excriment.

You're expressing narrow-minded fundamentalism. I'm guessing that you're simply polarized against creationists, and have therefore merely duplicated their rigidness in your own way. And have subsequently become like them in rigidness, on the basis of such polarization. And now you're using that same rigidness against someone who is not even a creationist.

The only people you're going to find receptive to these ideas aren't going to be scientifically minded, I can tell you that much.

Actually, I suggest that many scientifically-minded people are also quite open-minded to investigating unfamiliar theories. This is because they are not all rigidly fundamentalist as you demonstrate yourself to be.

Celeste22 · December 5, 2005

First, My apologies for interrupting.

I just wanted to thank Mokele for his last post. It was one of the most fluent or well-spoken (well-written if you will) explanations I have seen for awhile.

It was everything I've tried to sum up to my best friend and more, thank you Mokele.

bascule · December 5, 2005

Actually, I suggest that many scientifically-minded people are also quite open-minded to investigating unfamiliar theories. This is because they are not all rigidly fundamentalist as you demonstrate yourself to be.

What can I say, I'm a skeptic.

When someone makes absurd claims without evidence, I'm not going to be particularly receptive.

When said unsubstantiated, absurd claims contradict perhaps the most beautiful theory in all of science to date, evolution by natural selection, supported by mountains of evidence and comprising the grand unified theory of biology, I will immediately reject your ideas.

When someone making absurd claims without evidence likens me to a "fundamentalist" because of my skepticism, it's hard to keep from turning outright hostile.

When I ask for evidence and am responded to with...

According to what criteria?

I can only assume that you have nothing.

You sir, are a purveyor of bullshit. Your ideas are wrong, and you're trying to spread them. You are trying to infect people with pathological memes. Why don't you go find a new age forum where people aren't quite so discerning in what kind of stupidity they're willing to believe.

This is Science Forums and Debate. If you don't like a skeptical, scientific treatment of your ideas, why are you here?

~Agnostic~ · December 5, 2005

So, what exactly are you saying? Will our five senses ever detect these other things or they are simply unable to?

Yes, I believe that our five senses wil eventually detect metaphysical realms and portions of a multidimensional universe which we never knew existed. I believe that this will come about after a form of evolution which may be considered to be very different from your own belief system, although similar in many ways. In other words, I believe that the human species itself will 'evolve' into a race of beings which is literally physically immortal. The metaphysical and the physical will become one.

The only real difference between the metaphysical and the physical is that our five senses are not currently honed to percieve the one, even if they percieve the other. The metaphysical is as fully physical (if not moreso physical) than the physical realm which we currently percieve with our five senses. The metaphysical realm exists on a frequency of physicality which scientists have not yet been able to percieve, even with the most sophisticated equipment.

If it is the first case, then these things will be categorized as physical and thus will be under scientific explanation.

Correct. Scientists will eventually be able to detect greater portions of the metaphysical realm, and will at that time declare such portions to be physical. In fact, this has already happened to some degree. The concepts of atoms and molecules may be classed as having once been mere metaphysical theory by ancient scientists, until scientists verifiably discovered them. But when scientists discovered them, they could no longer be considered metaphysical, because they were then declared to be physical. The metaphysical realm is that realm which is well beyond what scientists can percieve or test with scientific methods. Angelic or alien visitations fall into the metaphysical category for example.

If it is the second case, there is no point in speculating about them because they will be undetected forever.

This is not the stance that I am taking.

So, you see, your suggestion/hypothesis/general belief is quite useless and borders on solipsism.

I suggest that my stance is not purely solipsistic, although it may appear as such. In fact, there is another method which is entirely valid in the context of legal court prosecutions, even if many scientists may reject it as 'unscientific'. Legal courts accept the 'testimony of two or three witnesses' as legally binding, when scientifically-based evidences may lack. Whether two or three witnesses observe the adduction and murder of a small child (with no scientific evidences available whatsoever), or whether they observe the miraculous visitation of an 'angelic space alien' (again with no scientific evidences), the exact same methods of evaluation are used, despite lack of scientifically observable evidences (insofar as most child abductions and/or visits by 'angelic space aliens' lack scientifically observable evidences).

Two or three witnesses made some scientifically unverifiable claims, so we just go with that, unless it be substantially proven false, beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. Hence, legal courts will often say "You damn scientists didn't prove nuthin' in this court case, so we're just gonna go with the testimonies of the witnesses, because no scientists or lawyers were there with cameras and such". The religionists and advocates of space aliens use this same method of evaluation. "Who cares about scientific evidence? Multiple agreed testimonies are well good enough. We don't need no physical proof." Our courts have sentenced many people to prison with no evidence whatsoever. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

How will that happen exactly? The physical "evidences" we have so far have helped us accomplish things like discussing with each other while thousands of miles apart. Evolution theory is having real and helpful applications in medicine and even robotics.

Well good.

If anything is going to change about the evidence, will not change the basics that are established.

What specific basics are you referring to?

It will also not be of "metaphysical" nature.

We may declare all physical matter to be 'metaphysical' prior to the time that scientists may be able to verifiably observe it. The metaphysical is that physical realm which exists beyond the capacity of scientists to currently percieve, either with the five senses or perception-enhancing equipment.

I'm not sure what you mean with this word anyway, if it is going to affect the physical world, then it is something physical.

Correct. However, I suggest that there are frequencies of physical matter (in fact, entire physical dimensions) which exist beyond the current level of attunement of the five senses of our human species. Matter is firstly composed of energy. Energy exists on frequencies, and therefore so does physical matter. Hence the concept of a multidimensional universe, solar system and world. Metaphysical. Scientists can't see it, hear it or touch it. Yet it exists. But a few have rendered unverifiable testimonies that they had momentarily glimpsed such things.

The fact that you deny that our five senses can grasp this metaphysical realm, yet you support its existence, implies that somehow you possess something more than the five senses the rest of us have. If this is not the case, then the supposition for the existence of a metaphysical realm beyond our senses can only be justified for explaining something that it is NOT beyond our senses. However, when there are explanations of a physical nature that even have useful applications in our lives, then this supposition is rendered useless.

Technically, I suggest that the five senses also exist metaphysically (and not merely physically as we commonly observe physicality). We each possess these senses inherently, but they are not necessarily always honed and attuned to higher and more qualitative frequencies of physical matter. What may be metaphysical to one person may sometimes be physical to another and vice versa.

bascule · December 5, 2005

There's nothing metaphysical about extra dimensions, if they exist.

Scientists will eventually be able to detect greater portions of the metaphysical realm, and will at that time declare such portions to be physical. In fact, this has already happened to some degree. The concepts of atoms and molecules may be classed as having once been mere metaphysical theory by ancient scientists, until scientists verifiably discovered them.

I don't mean to mince definitions, but the way you're using "metaphysical" is flat out wrong.

Something physical cannot be made out of something metaphysical: the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Atoms and molecules cannot, by definition, be a "metaphysical theory." That which is metaphysical is, by definition, immaterial.

There may be other dimensions beyond the familiar 3+1. M-theory says there are 10+1. If they do exist they only affect things at the scale of a Planck length, and are thus very small compared to the 3+1 with which we are familiar.

There's no need to drag anything "metaphysical" into such a discussion though. All these dimensions would do is provide additional "directions" in which strings can vibrate, beyond the familiar 3+1.

Note that there are theories of quantum gravity which are able to explain things without the need for extra dimensions, e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity.

~Agnostic~ · December 6, 2005

No. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory.

Okay, thanks.

Creationists are offended that mankind may have evolved from an earlier life form.

True. They view it as contradictory to their scriptures.

Science does not claim this as a fact

My impression is that many (if not most) evolutionists claim this as a fact. Namely that human beings had evolved from an earlier life form from whence apes had also evolved. Yet you are representing scientists as not claiming this as a fact. My own personal view is that both humanity and apes had descended from a superior lifeform, versus an inferior one. 'Celestial gods' so to speak. Although I don't hold to the classic definition of 'godhood', being primarily agnostic.

even though it does claim that there is enough avidence to claim that some evolution is a fact.

I can easily embrace the concept of 'environmental adaptation' of species, but whether these species are evolving forward or devolving backward is where I have some dispute. Basically, I believe that a species can not only evolve, but can also devolve.

Creationists tend to believe that it's strictly black and white, either there was creation or there is evolution. Scientists know better.

Actually, there are many creationists who also embrace evolution, so not all creationists view this as a black and white issue. There are creative evolutionists who believe that their God got the whole evolution thing going. These creative evolutionists interpret the scriptures more allegorically versus literally. Hence, some evolutionists are also creationists and vice versa, extracting various portions of data from both the scientific and religious realms.

In other words, some data is extracted from scientifically verifiable evidences, and other data is extracted from scientifically unverifiable eyewitness testimonies. Law courts today commonly accept multiple testimonies of people, so long as such testimonies agree with each other and are not outright disproven as false. Truly, legal courts accept the "It's true just because we said so, even though we lack proof" approach. People are commonly incarcerated for crimes lacking scientifically verified evidences, because most criminal cases actually lack outright evidence. Religionists use the same type of scientifically unverified testimonies that the legal courts rely on, when asserting the existence of divine miracles, for example. Others have asserted alien encounters and/or out-of-body experiences, on the mere basis of multiple testimonies (with no scientifically verifiable evidence).

Legal courts quite commonly incarcerate criminals with no more than this. "We don't actually have any evidence, but we have the testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses. You haven't actually scientifically disproven these testimonies, so the testimonies will do well enough for us. We don't need any proof. It's true because we say so."

I do not consider myself to be a creationist however.

We can only theorize about things we can't proof by proffering hypotheses based on our observations.

Agreed. But I've commonly seen many people go far beyond this. Many present their own theories as being factual, while simultaneously accusing an opponent of failing to present evidence for alternate theories. I've seen this occur on both sides of the creationist/evolutionist debate. Both sides are sometimes guilty, and many debates are caught in a catch-22.

Then again, creationists even get antsy about hypotheses that suggest any possibility that man was not created,

I believe that humanity is descended from earlier higher lifeforms, which was actually the predominant ancient view for millennia. My perspective (that humanity descended from 'celestial gods') was actually the most common view upon the face of the entire earth, up until the last century. Eventually scientists came on the scene and declared that the ancient mythologies contained no ounce of fact, due to a lack of any preserved evidences.

Many people mistakenly believe ancient mythology to be fairy tales, when actually it is badly recorded history. This is because there were no alphabets in the most ancient of times. History was once strictly recorded in pictures (not words), and was passed on via oral tradition. A vastly ancient historian would sit with students and explain a series of historical pictures canvassed along the inside of a pyramid or cave, for example. Stones containing pictures (not words) constituted the most ancient history books. Hence, ancient mythology contains 1% truth and 99% error. However, the 1% truth is vital, even if scientists have ignorantly dismissed it due to lack of evidence.

they tend to be very close-minded.

It has been my experience that both religionists and scientists, deists and atheists are often closed-minded. This is why they so hotly debate in the first place, each one affirming their own theories as fact, while placing the burden of proof upon their opponents. Again, not always however.

Mokele · December 6, 2005

How do you know that the associations are entirely correct? I suggest that they are most often off to some large degree.

First, on what basis do you make such an objection?

Second, how do you account for predictability arrived at through inferences based on observation. We observed and observed and observed and eventually inferred that F=ma, and when we build something using that principle, it works and gives the predicted results.

But I suggest that much of this deception lies in the assumed physicality of this 'material' world.

What we see *is* reality. Anything we cannot percieve, by definition has no effect, and is therefore irrelevant. Whether there is an observed plane with differences doesn't matter if we have no contact with that plane.

Much of the ancient knowledge had been lost from the earth due to weaknesses in historical recording methods. Subsequent to this ancient loss of knowledge, the human species went into a downsurge of consciousness, with a more recent super-compensatory upsurge within the technological era. I'm speaking of knowledge which was entertained prior to well-recorded history.

Is there evidence for this? While I agree that ancient people were far from stupid (some Greek whose name I forget calculated the diameter of the Earth to within a few dozen kilometers with only the tools of the day availible), I don't think there is any need to appeal to a cycle of consciousness for what can be explained by wars (armies may burn libraries) and fluctuation in political systems (democracy, imperialism, feudalism) which resulting in fluctuating public education.

But I am persuaded that you have never actually seen the evidence. I further doubt your willingness and/or capacity to observe such evidence without prejudice, if in fact you ever had the privilege of becoming exposed to it. For your presuppositions would likely mar your interpretation of it, if ever you directly encountered such evidences.

Evidence, as I am familiar with it, is something not open to interpretation. It's something like "This snake is 5 feet long", which cannot be disputed or altered by beliefs or biases. Now, we can disagree over whether the mean or median is the best representation of the length distribution in a population of snakes, but not on the actual evidence.

Evidence please, if any. Or at least a theory? Is your statement strictly referring to technological advances? Or something else?

Science has undeniably elucidated the working mechanisms of many phenomena (genes are the first thing that come to my mind).

Yes, I believe that our five senses wil eventually detect metaphysical realms and portions of a multidimensional universe which we never knew existed. I believe that this will come about after a form of evolution which may be considered to be very different from your own belief system, although similar in many ways. In other words, I believe that the human species itself will 'evolve' into a race of beings which is literally physically immortal. The metaphysical and the physical will become one.

Possible, but until then, why bother with it? If it can't produce observable effects until that point in time, does it really matter?

I suggest that my stance is not purely solipsistic, although it may appear as such. In fact, there is another method which is entirely valid in the context of legal court prosecutions, even if many scientists may reject it as 'unscientific'. Legal courts accept the 'testimony of two or three witnesses' as legally binding, when scientifically-based evidences may lack. Whether two or three witnesses observe the adduction and murder of a small child (with no scientific evidences available whatsoever), or whether they observe the miraculous visitation of an 'angelic space alien' (again with no scientific evidences), the exact same methods of evaluation are used, despite lack of scientifically observable evidences (insofar as most child abductions and/or visits by 'angelic space aliens' lack scientifically observable evidences).

Frankly, science rejects it because witnesses are unreliable.

I'll give you an example, an experiment an old psychology prof of mine did. He was just about to start class, and had called for people's attention, when a student came in and started arguing with him about a grade he'd recieved in front of everyone, making quite a show of it. The student stormed out. After a brief pause, the prof instructed everyone to get out a piece of paper and write down things about the student, and hand it in. The result? People got his *race* wrong, and sometimes the individuals *sex*, and this was a person they'd seen only moments ago.

Witness testimony is, by definition, unreliable. The human brain is far from a perfect recorder, with numerous biases and errors. It's admissible in court, but have you noticed how many people are being *proven* innocent and released now on the basis on DNA evidence that flatly contradicts the word of witnesses?

Energy exists on frequencies, and therefore so does physical matter.

Actually, iirc, it doesn't. Light and rest of the EM specturm has a frequency, but Kinetic Energy, for example, does not.

------------

However, I suggest this is all simply a pointless diversion from the main topic of the thread.

Please return to the main topic. If this topic is of enough concern, please create a new topic for it.

Mokele

bascule · December 6, 2005

It has been my experience that both religionists and scientists, deists and atheists are often closed-minded. This is why they so hotly debate in the first place, each one affirming their own theories as fact, while placing the burden of proof upon their opponents.

Any skeptic will, by definition, be close minded and place the burden of proof upon you when you challenge scientific authority on an issue.

Why? Science has done its homework, and come up with logically consistent explanations supported by mountains of evidence and experimentation. Have you? Doesn't sound like it...

Open minded people are easily infected with bullshit (i.e. pathological memes)

**ecoli** · December 6, 2005

Any skeptic will, by definition, be close minded and place the burden of proof upon you when you challenge scientific authority on an issue.

As how it should be, obviously. The burden of proof should be on the one who is trying to get you to believe your idea. Why should it be any other way?

~Agnostic~ · December 7, 2005

Like just about everything, there's no simple answer, because it depends on the trait or system you're talking about. Some traits will remain even if unneeded due to constraints based in developmental biology; if the loss of the now-useless trait would cause major problems in systems that as linked to it via the genes controlling embryonic development, it'll remain.

The human appendix comes to mind as a now useless organ.

However, if such constraints don't exist for the trait in question, then one of two things could happen if there's no selection acting to preserve the trait. First, the trait could become subject to genetic drift, which is basically the effects of randomness of evolution. It might stay the same, it might change shape, it might be lost, it might even become more prominent, all by luck of the draw.

Random genetic drift? I'm one to hold to some form of cause and effect, whether such cause and effect may be readily understood by us or not.

The second possibility is more likely: without selection maintaining it, the trait is useless but also costs energy to grow and maintain. As such, any organism lack or with a reduced version of the trait will have an energetic advantage over its fellows. As a result, selection will act to eliminate the now-useless trait.

This second possibility makes more sense.

Sadly, that's their primary tactic, because understanding evolution makes it obvious. It's reported that Huxley, one of Darwin's strongest advocates at the time, responded to the pre-release version of Origin of Species that Darwin sent him seeking his input with "How utterly stupid of me not to have thought of it first!".

I generally have seen cowardly suppressionist tactics originating from fundamentalists from both sides of the debate.

Or just different.

True.

Take, for example, the transition between vertebrate life on land and life in the water. In the water, animals have to constantly worry about losing salts that keep their body working, while on land, they worry more about losing water. Respiration is easier on land (more oxygen per ml, air is easier to move across respiratory surfaces than water), but just moving around takes a *lot* more energy without the support of water. In the water, you don't need t bother much with temperature regulation, because the whole stream is more-or-less the same temperature (with some variation in shore versus middle), while there ca be tremendous variation from place to place in temperature on land (think of the difference between on top of a sun-warmed rock and in the dirt beneath it). This means land animals need to pay closer attention to their body temperature, but unlike fish, they can move between very different temperature locations to regulate it (whereas if the lake gets too hot, the fish can't escape).

Okay, gotcha so far. Thanks.

Basically, most of evolution is the story of how different traits and strategies work for different environments. The numerous extinctions every time the climate changes (think of the KT event that killed the dinosaurs) attest to the fact that there's no single "optimal" strategy for all environments.

This type of worldwide elemental change is sometimes referred to as a 'cataclysm'. For example, an ice age or worldwide series of floods. Or perhaps volcanic eruptions which cover an entire planet simultaneously. Theoretically, 'cataclysms' transpire with all planets, as they age, change and evolve as the living organisms that they are. You're speaking of animal evolution, whereas I also hold to planetary evolution.

Pretty much; flying fish and penguins. Water has high drag (as I'm sure you've noiced whenever you've been swimming), so animals in the sea which move fast tend to have similar streamlining (as a result of physics). Sharks, dolphins and the extinct ichtyosaurs all look grossly similar because they've evolved to be fast-moving aquatic predators.

But a bird will never *truly* become a fish. Notice how dolphins move their tails up and down rather than side-to-side like sharks. Most mammal locomotion is similar; watch a cheetah run and you'll see what I mean. Even though the dolphin is adapting to the same role, it's constrained by it's past history.

I generally hold to the idea that the different species will again merge bloodlines as they undergo an 'evolutionary loop'.

It is even theorized that the human species itself originated from a single skin color, subsequently subdivided into races and nations, and will again crossbreed into a single race, wherein all of the current skin colors will mix into one again. Hence, when blacks, whites, yellows and browns achieve full interracial mixture, the human species will enter into it's next evolutionary state. Species divide only to recombine again. If they do not again recombine, the speciation will have been for naught. This form of evolution is quite different from environmentally-induced speciation however.

Animal cross-cloning functions as an acceleration of the remixing of the species which had formerly been divided. By genetically mixing similar animal types (lets say dogs with cats, or lions with tigers), the end results become a 'super-species' of animal. However, when the cross-cloning of species is vastly different (birds with fish, insects with reptiles), the new species tend to demonstrate a much higher mortality rate.

True, but imagine if, to use a trivial example, our vision of colors is the reverse of what they "really" are. Does it matter at all? Blue is still blue, because 'blue' is just a word we have for what we see. If my blue and your blue are the same, does whatever else is out there truly matter? If we can't detect that other level, then whether it exists or doesn't exist is totally irrelevant.

I suggest that these metaphysical levels have been detected by eyewitnesses many millions of times throughout the earth's history. However, scientists have commonly lacked the competence or skill to record such phenomena, being limited to only scientific methods of evaluation, as the materialists that they are.

This is why science has proven to be so much more successful than philosophy (just look at the departmental budgets).

In what way?

Science basically said "if it's not observable, why care about it?", and abandoned the use of pure deduction in favor of induction and empiricism.

Which serves as an evidence of scientific oversight.

After all, even if what we see and science analyzes isn't "the truth", it's what affects us as humans and our experiences, and is therefore both more important and more useful.

The differentiation here is that some experiences are scientifically observable and some are not.

But it all comes back to observability.

Please define 'observability' in the context that you are using the word.

If there is no evidence for these other dimensions,

Oh but there is evidence. It's simply not observable through scientific methods, inherently limited as they are.

and they are not empiricially observable,

Please define 'empirical observation' as you are using the term, in contrast to straight 'observation'.

then a) there's no reason to suppose they exist

Except for one million eyewitness testimonies throughout the millennia.

and b) even if they do exist, they don't matter,

Sure they do. 1% to 10% of people report some form of metaphysical experience in their lifetimes, even though you may not.

since they have no observable effect on anything.

Again, you're operating by a false presupposition at this point.

Now, if they *do* become observable,

Which they have.

then we have to change things,

No you don't. You're speaking ideally here. Why would you have to change things?

and science does that all the time.

But not enough unfortunately.

Newton came up with some ideas. His ideas were nice but not complete, and future observations lead to relativity and quantum mechanics. Now we know that *those* ideas don't work perfectly, and so physics is investing a lot of effort into finding a replacement theory (the "theory of everything" or "grand unified theory").

You're bordering on metaphysics here.

Had the moon truly been made of cheese, Neil's first words would likely have been "Whoa, it feels all squishy", and we would have proceeded to re-evalute all known data in the face of this discovery.

This example falls short.

What makes science such a powerful tool for understanding the universe is that it's inherently tentative and self-correcting. Making a theory is the best way to get your name in the scientific history books, but destroying one is the second-best, and is far easier, so if the opportunity arrises, lots of people will leap at such an opportunity.

I suggest that science sometimes fails to correct itself, even if it still does so somewhat periodically. Although, this problem rests moreso with the scientists versus science itself.

Yes. We've check radiometric dating quite thoroughly, by dating things which we *know* when they occured (like the eruption at Vesuvius which destroyed Pompei), and checking them against each other. The chances *all* of the dozens of methods are wrong in precisely the same way for all the points they agree on is so infinitesimally tiny that it's not worth considering.

Please elaborate on radiometric dating.

Except that myth is just that, myth.

Not entirely correct. I suggest that you fail to understand what mythology is and why it exists. Basically, mythology is no more that ancient history which suffered corruptions in the recording process. Please check my previous posts where I elaborate on this. Mythology is quite a bit different from watching a science fiction movie.

In contrast, we can look as the anatomy, genetics, development, physiology, biochemistry and behaviors of humans and apes and note that they're very, very, very similar. We can also look at the fossil record and actually see the physical remains of the transition.

Again, I suggest that this requires a certain degree of presupposition, which runs contrary to other fields of study not limited to religion.

History leaves its imprint on things. We can infer from the fact that people in the US speak English that the English were a dominant colonizing force. We can do the same with animals.

The comparison seems a bit of a leap, but I'll try to follow.

An excellent example is dead viri. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into that cell, and the DNA becomes part of the cell's genetic code, commandeering it to produce more viri rather than whatever else it was supposed to be doing. But sometimes viri get mutations just like us, and the virus DNA gets in, but then fails to work properly. If it infects the right sort of cell, this "dead virus DNA" is inherited by the offspring of that individual. The human genome is littered with these things, as are the genomes of apes. Most importantly, though, humans and apes share many such dead viri at *exactly* the same location in the genome. The propability of two independent infection events that result in these dead virial DNA areas being in the same location is so remote as to be inconsequential.

Okay.

Furthermore, there's a pattern to it. There's a certain set shared by all apes (including us), presumabily inherited from the common ancestor. But then some are shared by all apes (including humans) except gibbons, then some shared by all except gibbons and organutans, then some shared only by chimps, humans and gorillas, then some only shared by chimps and humans. Some are unique to each species. Some are shared only by the two species of chimps or several species of gibbons.

This would signify that there is a common ancestor somewhere, but I'm not aware that scientists have accurately and assuredly isolated this 'missing link' beyond the presuppositions of their own minds.

The take-home message is that the probability of this pattern occuring (and, incidentally, precisely matching patterns of evolution inferred by other means) by any method other than shared common ancestry is so remote that it doesn't warrant serious consideration.

I've not debated here against a shared common ancestry.

Ask a question
Form a hypothesis (tentative answer)

Devise a prediction of this hypothesis wich can be tested and shown to be consistent or inconsistent with the data

Test the hypothesis

Analyze data

Accept or reject hypothesis based on data

Repeat testing.

This may be the dogma of the fundamentalist scientist, but legal courts do not limit themselves to this limited mode of learning. This method only works when their is testable physical material available. But this is not always the case. Legal courts often rely moreso on multiple eyewitness testimonies for example. You may refer to my previous posts where I expand on this. To negate experiences in the context of multiple eyewitness testimonies, for lack of scientifically verifiable evidence, simply lacks common sense.

An example:
What color are the balls in this bag?

I think they're all blue

I can pull some out, and look at them. If they're all blue, I'm right, if any are red, I'm wrong (note that sampl size is statistically very important, and thus much of modern science is expressed in statistical terms)

I take some balls out, and one is red.

My hypothesis is wrong

Make new hypothesis: balls are red and blue

repeat cycle.

All, no. Enough, yes. Consider the balls example above. If I have a bag of 100 balls, and I hypothesize they're all blue, how can I test that? Well, I could just empty them all out, but what if that's not possible? What if I can only look at one ball at a time, then put it back and mix up the bag?

This is where statistics comes into play. Science does *not* offer 100% answers. But it *can* say, "We picked 100,000 times from this bag, and thus the chances that we missed a non-blue ball are less than 0.000000001%, and therefore insignificant".

How statistically significant your results must be depends on the field of science. 95% is pretty universally accepted, considering all the difficulties of actual experiments (measurement error, animal behavior, contaminants, etc).

This is a fine example when referring to material phyical evidences as we more commonly percieve such to exist, but is absolutely worthless when assessing metaphysical experiences or events.

Technically, the biological definition is "Change in gene frequency in a population over time". Bascule uses a different one, to incorportate technological evolution.

It's my understanding that the bulk context of our discussion revolves moreso around biological speciation.

But theories are supported by evidence.

In science perhaps, though not always in law courts. Facts are ascertained by the testimonies of multilple eyewitnesses, often with no shreds of evidence. Whereas theories tend to break down in court rooms.

In science "Theory" refers to a postulated idea which was tested and confirmed. That doesn't mean it's involate, only that what evidence we have supports it.

In what way may a 'tested confirmation' be rendered 'violate'?

Also, evolution is also an evidence. We observe the phenomenon of evolution all the time (see antibiotic resistence in bacteria). That sense of "evolution" is a fact. The theory of evolution is how we explain the evolution we see (change in gene frequency over time).

Evolution may serve as an evidence when observing shorter lived lifeforms (such as microscopic insects), but we have not been able to directly observe the speciation of longer lived lifeforms. Perhaps on a side note, it is theorized that the entire insect kingdom originally evolved from a microscopic size. Hence, many of the more dominant species of microscopic insects eventually got big enough to where we can see them with the naked eye. And the less dominant insects typically remained invisible, though some still multiplying at a rapid rate.

Think of it like gravity: there's the phenomenon (dropping an apple) and the theory (superstrings, gravitrons, spacetime curvature) of why it happens.

Again, you're bordering on metaphysics.

We have a very nice sequence of fossils showing whale evolution (just google 'whale evolution'), and we've observed speciation caused by reproductive isolation in a group of flies who lay their eggs in cacti. One population developed a mutation to allow them to lay in a formerly toxic cactus, and eventually actually became dependent on the toxin as a metabolic source of a particular nutrient. As a result, this population can no longer mix genes with the other populations.

I checked a link and found it quite interesting. It's theorized that whales and dolphins actually originated as land animals.

Usually, speciation takes longer, but flies have such short generation times that it becomes practical to observe. We've got some more inferential stuff from various fish, particularly sticklebacks and cichlids, but we haven't observed the entire process in those, just the current state and we know when they became isolated.

Again, animals with shorter term lifespans. Makes sense.

Yes, but if those theories say nothing about evolution, they don't need to take it into account. Any theory which *does*, no matter how distant from biology, must take it into account. This goes for all science.

Metaphysical evolution is very commonly known among those who are more familiarized with metaphysics. However, I suggest that standard scientific methods of observation create an inherent block within the minds of scientists, which cause them to miss many observed properties of the universe of metaphysical value. Scientists encounter a great deal of difficulty seeing past their commonly presupposed material world, on the basis of a fundamentally materialistic mindset.

I actually have a friend who's head of the philosophy department here, and his primary passion is destroying philosophical "theories of the mind" which are based on neurobiology that's been subsequently overturned (in essence, the philosophical theories are based on old information, and he points out new information that proves them wrong).

Okay. That's nice.

No coherent theory can simply ignore evidence concerning it.

I agree. Are you suggesting that I or anyone has ignored evidence in this thread? Such would constitute an assumption.

To use my bag of balls example, that's like saying they're all blue even if I see someone else pull an red ball from the same bag.

And how is this relevant to our conversation? What specifically do you suggest has been ignored?

Observation. If I run genetic tests on the stickleback fish mentioned above, that's evidence (unless I did it wrong, which is why all science papers have a section describing the materials and methods used to get the data).

Yet you've not observed the full speciation process of stickleback fish, and actually rely moreso on inferences as you suggest.

To return yet again to the bag of balls, every ball I pull out is evidence. It's only not evidence if you can show I palmed the ball and replaced it with a fake or somesuch.

Context please. Are you referring to the common ancestry of humans and apes?

Not at all. Evolution is totally independent of the big bang and abiogenesis. Whether the universe was always here, made by god, or made by the big bag doesn't matter at all to evolution. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether life arose from the slime, was made by god, or was left by aliens, all that matters to evolution is that there is life which mutates, reproduces, and has heritable differences in reproductive/survival sucess.

Don't tell this to many evolutionists. They will berate you.

---------------------

As a side-note, SFN often gets creationists who *aren't* interested in learning, but rather in just spouting off their views no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. This has generated a lot of ill-will towards creationism, as such actions are disruptive to the environment we try to maintain. So basically, don't take it personally if you get some harsh responses; we've not only learned that creationism usually means flaming, poor logic, and intellectual dishonesty, we've actually had to take a firm administrative stance against it because it was so disruptive and damaging.

So? What has this got to do with me? I'm not a creationist. If someone (not you) takes crass potshots at me, I will strictly retaliate, unto permanent ban. I hope that I have made myself clear. And I now see that such may eventualy be the direction of this thread, insofar as someone (not you) has ventured to press a conflict. I hope that we can complete this discussion constructively prior to the lock of this thread, but I honestly don't see it going in that direction.

Threads like this, where someone with legitimate questions about science and evolution asks for information and discussion, are why I've always backed off on the idea of totally banning it, no matter how frustrating less well-conducted threads become. Threads like this provide a golden opportunity to fulfill SFNs core objective of eductation and information.

Unfortunately, some of the attacks that I've recieved in the context of this thread will likely serve to derail this educational process. I will enjoin and bind the conflict with strict retaliation, and will thereafter resume our discussion unless the thread is perchance locked beforehand.

So basically, I'd like to say that I'm glad you're taking an open approach to this subject, and I'll help in any way I can (within the time I have).

Sorry, but I've grown quite closed with some of the condescending attacks that I've recieved in this thread thus far. So we'll have to put the education thing to the side for now, while I enjoin the conflict which has been leveled at me. It is my habit to respond to every post directed to me in sequential fashion, addressing all points to the best of my ability.

Mokele

Thanks much.

First' date=' My apologies for interrupting.

I just wanted to thank Mokele for his last post. It was one of the most fluent or well-spoken (well-written if you will) explanations I have seen for awhile.

It was everything I've tried to sum up to my best friend and more, thank you Mokele.[/quote']I would have to fully agree.

~Agnostic~ · December 7, 2005

What can I say, I'm a skeptic.

I tend to be moreso the skeptic myself. However, you strike me as more accusatory than skeptical.

When someone makes absurd claims without evidence, I'm not going to be particularly receptive.

That's entirely up to you. I care not whether you are receptive or not. I will sometimes consciously insert a few absurd claims into a discussion, so as to potentially isolate and weed out hotheads such as yourself, who are not solely focused on constructive learning and debate.

When said unsubstantiated, absurd claims contradict perhaps the most beautiful theory in all of science to date, evolution by natural selection, supported by mountains of evidence and comprising the grand unified theory of biology, I will immediately reject your ideas.

Good for you. Although, I'm not aware that I've actually contradicted any actual evidence related to the theory of evolution. I require something a bit more practical than your ecstatic ruminations on theoretical beauty, in answer to my concerns and questions.

When someone making absurd claims without evidence likens me to a "fundamentalist" because of my skepticism, it's hard to keep from turning outright hostile.

Actually, your hostility began to manifest well prior to my identification of your adherence to scientific fundamentals. Sequencing is key here, but you've missed it.

When I ask for evidence and am responded to with...

I can only assume that you have nothing.

Such was my intent. As it is, you've merely dodged a very large number of questions which I had directed to you, and leveled attacks instead. This tells me that you are neither concerned with education or debate, but rather only harbor a penchant for conflict.

You sir, are a purveyor of bullshit. Your ideas are wrong, and you're trying to spread them. You are trying to infect people with pathological memes.

My primary concern is with the psychic venom which you are spewing in the context of your accusations. Such to me exceeds the weight of mere unsubstantiated assertions on my part.

Why don't you go find a new age forum where people aren't quite so discerning in what kind of stupidity they're willing to believe.

I will remain to continue discussion with the other members of this forum. Actually, it doesn't matter in the slightest to me whether a person embraces my views or not. I have simply presented my views in the context of this thread, to see how they stack up in the light of evolutionary theories. Every other individual in this thread (other than yourself) responsed both elegantly and articulately in answer to my concerns. None but you have ventured to issue accusatory attacks in response to an alternate belief system which they have encountered.

This is Science Forums and Debate. If you don't like a skeptical, scientific treatment of your ideas, why are you here?

Your treatment of ideas is more accusatory than skeptical. And again, your failure to constructively address my questions and/or concerns evidences your lack of value regarding constructive education and/or debate. Accusatory retaliations on your part are anything but scientific, unless it merely be to verify a lapse in social communication responses between differently-minded individuals.

There's nothing metaphysical about extra dimensions, if they exist.

Thanks for your unfounded psuedo-hypothesis, but you apparently lack a practical understanding of what metaphysics is. It grows quite complex, and I'm afraid that it has simply escaped you, as is evident with your inability to grasp these concepts, and the wholistic definition of metaphysics.

I don't mean to mince definitions,

I'm not convinced. You're still offended that someone has ventured to present alternate perspectives which are not fully pre-digestible to your stomach. Or more accurately, your narrowed perception.

but the way you're using "metaphysical" is flat out wrong.

You are incorrect. You're suffering from an interpretive perceptual slant of readily available dictionary terms. For example, you've embraced definition 1 listed here, while simultaneously rejecting definition 2. This type of non-wholistic perceptual slant is perhaps most commonly termed 'dualism' or doublemindedness. You're viewing things dualistically. Let's take a look.

metaphysical

adjective

Having no body, form, or substance: bodiless, discarnate, disembodied, immaterial, incorporeal, insubstantial, nonphysical, spiritual, unbodied, uncorporal, unsubstantial. See body.
Of, coming from, or relating to forces or beings that exist outside the natural world: extramundane, extrasensory, miraculous, preternatural, superhuman, supernatural, superphysical, supersensible, transcendental, unearthly. See supernatural.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/m/m0974100.html

Notice particularly the references to 'supernatural' and 'superphysical'.

su·per·phys·i·cal Listen: [ spr-fz-kl ]

adj.

Exceeding or going beyond the purely physical.
Not explained by known physical laws; preternatural or supernatural.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0901600.html

su·per·nat·u·ral Listen: [ spr-nchr-l ]

adj.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

n.

That which is supernatural.http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0900800.html

Hence we see that superphysical is more physical than physical. And supernatural is more natural than natural.

'Meta' may commonly mean 'beyond' or 'greater than', and 'physical' simply means 'material'.

Something physical cannot be made out of something metaphysical: the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

This is incorrect. You're thinking dualistically here. Think relatively.

Atoms and molecules cannot, by definition, be a "metaphysical theory." That which is metaphysical is, by definition, immaterial.

Again, you've favored one definition over another definition, straining the dictionary content through your own presuppositionally colorized perception. In other words, you're just being narrow-minded, and have therefore bypassed what the text readily offers you. Did you even bother to look the word up?

There may be other dimensions beyond the familiar 3+1. M-theory says there are 10+1.

I suggest that these dimensions are numerically infinite, at least outside of the context of our own solar system. And many of them interlink as well. In the evolution of our multidimensional universe, these various dimensions divide and recombine again, thereby allowing for the infinite growth of a universe without macro- or micro- wall barriers. Our currently percieved physical dimension is merely like a speck of sand in comparison to the greater desert of our undiscovered multidimensional universe.

If they do exist they only affect things at the scale of a Planck length,

If? That's a bit naive.

and are thus very small compared to the 3+1 with which we are familiar.

I suggest a bigger ruler. No brain or computational device is large enough to cognize the scope of these dimensions.

There's no need to drag anything "metaphysical" into such a discussion though. All these dimensions would do is provide additional "directions" in which strings can vibrate, beyond the familiar 3+1.

I realize that there is no 'need' for me to incorporate the metaphysical into our quasi-discussion. I did it because I could. You'll just have to deal with it.

Note that there are theories of quantum gravity which are able to explain things without the need for extra dimensions, e.g. Loop Quantum Gravity.

You're welcome to bring quantum gravity into the equation, but you're just veering onto a tangent at this point then, as far as I'm concerned. But be my guest. I'm waiting.

the tree · December 7, 2005

Agnostic, writing verbosely doesn't mean writing a better argument at all. In fact undue verbosity is a pretty good sign of bullshit a lot of the time.

Bascule is entirely correct in saying there is nothing metaphysical (or anything as special) about any given dimension.

Dimensions don't have scope, a dimension is just a set of two possibly directions, nothing more nothing less.

insane_alien · December 7, 2005

meta-physical things are nothing to do with science even though whoever made up the term used "physical" in it. these things have no observable effects and therefore don't matter. occams razor castrates the metaphysical quite nicely

~Agnostic~ · December 8, 2005

First, on what basis do you make such an objection?

Oh, I just automatically object to anything given to me that's offered without substantiation, as I would only expect of others regarding anything that I say (just so long as it's not riddled with base accusations). Then I wait and see if any solid ground is given.

Second, how do you account for predictability arrived at through inferences based on observation. We observed and observed and observed and eventually inferred that F=ma, and when we build something using that principle, it works and gives the predicted results.

This is entirely valid when measuring the 'known' laws of material physics, but will invariably be wrong most of the time when attempting to measure that which is above or beyond these laws. For example, gravity observably makes things fall down in our earthly atmosphere. However, not always. Sometimes things fall up, as in the case of supernatural levitation which has been observed by some, albeit not photographed. Very common in out-of-body experiences.

What we see *is* reality.

No, it is not. It only seems such, insofar as a 'trick' has been placed on your senses. I'm using a bit of wordplay here. I'm not so much suggesting that what we physically percieve is not reality. Rather, I'm suggesting that this physical reality is not 'as real' as what we commonly observe it to be. We are like ants attempting to measure the macroverse with sticks and rulers, with our laws of physics and various scientific methods.

Anything we cannot percieve, by definition has no effect, and is therefore irrelevant.

Incorrect. In fact, I suggest that we are dominated by a greater reality of which we have little or often no awareness whatsoever. This is because you are only perceiving from 10% (or thereabouts) of your brain, while the rest of it is merely operating subconsciously. We are each as sleepwalkers in a stupor, percieving a 'reality' which is better likened to a dream. Again, I'm using a bit of word play here, which may offend some people's sense of intellectual security.

Whether there is an observed plane with differences doesn't matter if we have no contact with that plane.

However, contacts have been observed. The lapse is in the scientific equipment available. Cameras, clocks and rulers are not valid measuring devices when attempting to harness that which exists on another plane of physical frequency. However, the human brain itself, in isolation from scientific measuring devices, is sometimes capable of measuring extra- and/or inter-dimensional physical structures.

Is there evidence for this?

Yes. Just read ancient books. Many of the oral traditions contained some extra-ordinary beliefs. Some interesting patterns begin to emerge within ancient belief systems that scientists typically miss. Now if you're looking for 'empirical' evidence that you can photograph (beyond the reading of ancient manuscripts), then you won't find it. We rather have patterns within countless ancient testimonies of a world which in many ways exceeded the understanding of scientists today.

The ancent fall of human consciousness directly involves a laspe into 'materialistic' focus, as many, though not all, scientists get caught up in. Seeking to study our material dimension, many scientists typically overlook a vast plethora of ancient testimonies from those whose understanding exceeded their own in many ways.

While I agree that ancient people were far from stupid (some Greek whose name I forget calculated the diameter of the Earth to within a few dozen kilometers with only the tools of the day availible), I don't think there is any need to appeal to a cycle of consciousness for what can be explained by wars (armies may burn libraries) and fluctuation in political systems (democracy, imperialism, feudalism) which resulting in fluctuating public education.

The reason that you see no need for metaphysical explanations is because you lack a knowledge of non-empirical data. Further, because you have not had the same experiences as 1-10% of the earth's population, you therefore deem such irrelevant. You are embracing the Occam's Razor principle, going with the simplist possible solution as simple minds often do, yet failing to observe all of the significant data, because you erringly believe it to be irrelevant.

Simple is not always necessarily best. Simple is just perhaps the most comfortable. The Occam's Razor principle is often misapplied by the lazy mind, which has failed to evaluate non-empirical data. The shortcoming of empiricism is that you can't make a qualified assessment of a matter or claim, if it falls outside of your personal experience. Think of a complex court case, where you don't yet have all of the data.

Evidence, as I am familiar with it, is something not open to interpretation.

Then you are not familiar with evidence. Your interpretation becomes colored and sometimes even skewed immediately upon perceiving evidence. This is why two people can look at the exact same thing, and interpret it differently.

It's something like "This snake is 5 feet long", which cannot be disputed or altered by beliefs or biases.

Oh but it can. I may be using the metric system, while you're using old-fashioned feet and inches.

Now, we can disagree over whether the mean or median is the best representation of the length distribution in a population of snakes, but not on the actual evidence.

The snake is the evidence. The measuring devices or units are not.

Science has undeniably elucidated the working mechanisms of many phenomena (genes are the first thing that come to my mind).

In what context? Can you offer a specific example? You mentioned genes.

Possible, but until then, why bother with it?

Because it produces observable effects. The human brain has commonly even recorded these effects, albeit science lacks the capacity to play back a person's memories on a tv monitor. This is a lapse of science, not of the human brain, however.

If it can't produce observable effects until that point in time, does it really matter?

Your presupposition that these effects are not observable is false. It would be more accurate to say that you have not directly observed them. Yet others have. And the lapse of scientists rests within their incapacity to gather empirical evidence on such matters.

Frankly, science rejects it because witnesses are unreliable.

Witnesses are unreliable? Always? You're making a wild presupposition now. If this is the case, then scientists would make inferior judgments to court judges, because they only look at half the data. They are strictly empirical. The scientist is basically saying that her/his personal experiences and/or observations are valid, and all others are false. Testimonies are no good to the scientist, because no world exists outside of the scientist's own directly empirical observations.

If this is truly the case, (and I would have thought scientists to be smarter than this), then scientists simply toss most of the substantive data available to them directly in the garbage.

I'll give you an example, an experiment an old psychology prof of mine did. He was just about to start class, and had called for people's attention, when a student came in and started arguing with him about a grade he'd recieved in front of everyone, making quite a show of it. The student stormed out. After a brief pause, the prof instructed everyone to get out a piece of paper and write down things about the student, and hand it in. The result? People got his *race* wrong, and sometimes the individuals *sex*, and this was a person they'd seen only moments ago.

This would constitute a flimsy example in a legal court. For example, in a legal court, the various testimonies would be cross-examined, with inconsistencies weeded out. Afterwhich, certain consistencies would still remain, and be deemed substantive. Just because people sometimes disagree in their testimonies does not make all testimonies on the face of the earth invalid. Patterns of consistency within testimonies are considered to be an 'evidence', albeit an 'evidence' which scientists overlook.

Witness testimony is, by definition, unreliable.

No it is not. Rather, 'inconsistent' witness testimonies may be deemed as unreliable. Consistency, on the other hand, is another matter.

The human brain is far from a perfect recorder, with numerous biases and errors.

This is why you are often incapable of interpreting empirical evidence without presuppositional skew.

It's admissible in court,

Why do you suppose this is? Are you smarter than the whole US legal court system? Are scientists smarter than court judges? I doubt it. In fact, I suggest that scientific observation is actually inferior to legal methods of observation in many ways.

but have you noticed how many people are being *proven* innocent and released now on the basis on DNA evidence that flatly contradicts the word of witnesses?

Of course, you're also assuming that the DNA tests are always correct. Do you have a basis for this? Scientific observations are often more flawed than testimonies, and any scientist's competence can be questioned and second-guessed by other professionals. You'd be making a vast leap to surmise that scientists don't make mistakes, whilst asserting that witnesses are always unreliable.

Actually, iirc, it doesn't.

Unverified presupposition on your part. You're simply countering my own unverified presupposition with your own unverified presupposition. Disagreeing with a statement does not inherently make that statement false.

Light and rest of the EM specturm has a frequency, but Kinetic Energy, for example, does not.

Not that you've observed in your personal experience. But empirical observation is inadequate to positively assess this.

------------

However, I suggest this is all simply a pointless diversion from the main topic of the thread.

Sounds a bit legalistic. Then why did you respond? If you consider something to be a diversion from your world of safety, then simply don't respond.

Please return to the main topic.

That's your job. I'm not into the legalistic constraints when we wander into unchartered waters. Please be aware that most threads characteristically evolve into new topics after a freeform approach. Creative learning is of greater importance than arriving at strict 'scientific' resolution at the end of a topic. This is because we don't know it all, and any honest person will admit that some questions may remain unanswered, thereby facilitating the potential for future learning on a topic.

If this topic is of enough concern, please create a new topic for it.

I'll carry on the discussion here according to it's freeform course, as long as there are responses. Afterwhich, I will begin a new thread when this thread has run it's course.

Mokele

Thanks much for your responses.

Mokele · December 9, 2005

Random genetic drift? I'm one to hold to some form of cause and effect, whether such cause and effect may be readily understood by us or not.

Basically it's sampling error. Like if you have a bag full of 1000 decks of playing cards, a large enough sample should give the same proportions as in the bag, namely just as many of each suit and number. But if you take a small sample, say only 20 cards, you aren't going to have the right proportion.

Same thing here: if the population size is small enough, not all genetic combinations can be played out, and there is "sampling error" (aka genetic drift) that alters the frequency of genes. The smaller the population/sample, the more extreme the effects.

This type of worldwide elemental change is sometimes referred to as a 'cataclysm'. For example, an ice age or worldwide series of floods. Or perhaps volcanic eruptions which cover an entire planet simultaneously. Theoretically, 'cataclysms' transpire with all planets, as they age, change and evolve as the living organisms that they are. You're speaking of animal evolution, whereas I also hold to planetary evolution.

Well, planets don't evolve in the same sense as animals, in that they don't reproduce, but they certainly do change, often dramatically, and these changes can have huge effects on life.

I generally hold to the idea that the different species will again merge bloodlines as they undergo an 'evolutionary loop'.

It is even theorized that the human species itself originated from a single skin color, subsequently subdivided into races and nations, and will again crossbreed into a single race, wherein all of the current skin colors will mix into one again. Hence, when blacks, whites, yellows and browns achieve full interracial mixture, the human species will enter into it's next evolutionary state. Species divide only to recombine again. If they do not again recombine, the speciation will have been for naught. This form of evolution is quite different from environmentally-induced speciation however.

Humans, however, are a single species, capable of interbreeding. By definition, two separate species either a) cannot interbreed effectively (hybrids may be stillborn or sterile, or maybe the different species have different mating displays) b) will not under regular circumstances (females might view males from the other species as inferior since they lack special characteristics of males of their species) or c) do not exchange significant genetic information overall (they do interbreed, but not enough for it to matter).

Even if some species interbreed, there's no way you could unify all species; there's just too much difference.

Animal cross-cloning functions as an acceleration of the remixing of the species which had formerly been divided. By genetically mixing similar animal types (lets say dogs with cats, or lions with tigers), the end results become a 'super-species' of animal. However, when the cross-cloning of species is vastly different (birds with fish, insects with reptiles), the new species tend to demonstrate a much higher mortality rate.

What you're referring to is called "hybrid vigor", which occurs because hybirds generate novel and often beneficial combinations of genes. But this usually is restricted to within-genus matings; crossing a cat and dog simply will not work; the genetic and developmental instructions are just too different to generate a viable fetus.

I suggest that these metaphysical levels have been detected by eyewitnesses many millions of times throughout the earth's history. However, scientists have commonly lacked the competence or skill to record such phenomena, being limited to only scientific methods of evaluation, as the materialists that they are.

Well, it depends on the questions you ask. Science asks questions about the material world. Could God be speaking to people through their dreams? Sure. But that doesn't actually alter the *material* world, thus science is unconcerned with it.

In what way?

Well, what has philosophy accomplished in the past 300 years. Compare that to putting a man on the moon, eradicating smallpox, curing hundreds of other diseases, and making the computers we are now using.

I once heard it put that science stopped dealing with the philosophical questions about "The Truth" and meaning of life and suchlike, which probably can't be answered, and concentrated on things we can answer, like why do the planets move like they do, or why do people get sick. As a result, science flourished (billions of dollars in grant money and a society nearly totally dependent upon it).

Which serves as an evidence of scientific oversight.

Not oversight, but specialization. We don't *deny* that non-observable things could exist, we just don't care and leave it to other people to deal with.

Please define 'observability' in the context that you are using the word.

Something that can be repeatably observed and agreed upon regardless of perspective. Dropping a ball and measuring the speed, as opposed to the meaning of a dream.

Sure they do. 1% to 10% of people report some form of metaphysical experience in their lifetimes, even though you may not.

Actually, I have. But whatever happens with that doesn't matter to science, because that's not science's problem.

Think of it like this: I'm a biomechanicist; I study the mechanics of how living things move, eat, etc. That doesn't mean I deny, say, genetics, only that it's not of interest to me and my studies.

Similarly, science doesn't *deny* such things, only say they aren't relevant to the scientific understanding of the world, which is how the material world acts.

You're bordering on metaphysics here.

How so? I'm merely pointing out that scientific theories are inherently tentative, and we always know that someday they might be overturned and replaced with something new and better.

We also secretly hope they will be, because new shiny theories get loads of grant money, if you get on the boat soon enough.

I suggest that science sometimes fails to correct itself, even if it still does so somewhat periodically. Although, this problem rests moreso with the scientists versus science itself.

Ever hear of Alan Fedducia? Probably not. He's this paleontologist who doesn't believe birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, but rather believes (without any major evidence) that they arose from a non-dinosaurian line of archosaurs. Basically, he's the last gasp of an old idea. Old scientists do this, cling to ideas long past their time. There's even a saying that "a scientific revolution occurs one funeral at a time."

Scientists are human, but over the broader timescale, things get corrected when there is need to do so.

Please elaborate on radiometric dating.

Ok, I'm guessing you know the idea that we know how fast something decays, and we know the initial ammount, so we can use the current amount to determine how old it is. The current amount in measurable, so what we need to know is the original amount. Usually, this is derived from both present amounts (how much of an isotope is in something new) combined with understanding how it forms so we can predict when we'll see anomalies. Then there's the rate. There's no reason to expect it to vary, since it's pure physics, but just to be sure, we check it.

For instance, we can use it to date the eruption of Vesuvius in the Roman times. The key is we know precisely when that happened from ancient histories, so we can check our answers.

Now the important thing is that the rates are all different for the different methods (carbon 14 versus uranium or argon based methods). So if there's an error, it'll become dramaticly worse as time goes by, and the estimates given by the methods will diverge. On the other hand, if the methods and rates are correct, we'll see them consistently agreeing, which we do (to the limits of statistical analysis).

Again, I suggest that this requires a certain degree of presupposition, which runs contrary to other fields of study not limited to religion.

But what presupposition does it require beyond the same fairly basic ones upon which all of science rests?

This would signify that there is a common ancestor somewhere, but I'm not aware that scientists have accurately and assuredly isolated this 'missing link' beyond the presuppositions of their own minds.

You mean have we actually found the missing link, the single individual? No, and we never will, for two reasons:

1) fossilization is actually *very* rare; less than 1 in a billion skeletons ever fossilizes, and most of those are subsequently destroyed by erosion before we ever find them. The chances of finding that individual are astronomically tiny

2) even if we did, fossils don't preserve DNA, so we can't tell if the individual is the missing link, or the link's brother who never had kids and thus couldn't be the link.

However, as you yourself note, the data does indicate very strongly that a common ancestor exists. Without direct evidence to the contrary, there's no good reason to think otherwise.

This may be the dogma of the fundamentalist scientist, but legal courts do not limit themselves to this limited mode of learning. This method only works when their is testable physical material available. But this is not always the case.

Considering their rate of convicting the innocent, I wouldn't use the courts as a measure of how to do anything.

Legal courts often rely moreso on multiple eyewitness testimonies for example. You may refer to my previous posts where I expand on this. To negate experiences in the context of multiple eyewitness testimonies, for lack of scientifically verifiable evidence, simply lacks common sense.

The trick is that multiple eyewitnesses are all unreliable and innacurate, but you can cancell the errors out. Like if they all argee the subject was 6'5", but recall different jacket colors, you can't convict based on jacket color, but you can say he matches the height described.

The point is that witnesses are not perfectly reliable, and must be taken with a grain of salt. Or a barrel-full.

This is a fine example when referring to material phyical evidences as we more commonly percieve such to exist, but is absolutely worthless when assessing metaphysical experiences or events.

But since science doesn't bother with the non-material world, what does that matter?

In science perhaps, though not always in law courts. Facts are ascertained by the testimonies of multilple eyewitnesses, often with no shreds of evidence. Whereas theories tend to break down in court rooms.

Those aren't "theories" in the sense I'm using the term. Science has particular definitions for *everything*, and "theory" specifically means a tested hypothesis supported by evidence.

In what way may a 'tested confirmation' be rendered 'violate'?

Well, to go back to the balls, if I theorize that the bag has all blue balls, and I get nothing but blue balls in 1000 samples, I have a theory now. But someone else might come along and take 100,000 samples and find that one very rare red ball, disproving my theory.

Another good example is mammal reproduction. For a long time, it was the dominant theory that all mammals have live young. When biologists got to Australia and found the Platypus and Echidna, which lay eggs, this previously supported theory had to be discarded.

Evolution may serve as an evidence when observing shorter lived lifeforms (such as microscopic insects), but we have not been able to directly observe the speciation of longer lived lifeforms.

But why would you expect it to be any different? There's no reason to expect so, no substantial difference beyond simply the timescale involved. I've dropped lots of small household objects before (often on my foot). Does size alone warrant skepticism that if I let go of a 200lb weight, it might or might not fall?

Perhaps on a side note, it is theorized that the entire insect kingdom originally evolved from a microscopic size. Hence, many of the more dominant species of microscopic insects eventually got big enough to where we can see them with the naked eye. And the less dominant insects typically remained invisible, though some still multiplying at a rapid rate.

Factually incorrect. The fossil record of insects is actually extremely well-known and well-studied. They arose from sea-dwelling ancestors that were actually much larger, and many of the original insects were *huge*. We're talking 6 foot long millipedes and dragonflies with 2 foot wingspans.

I checked a link and found it quite interesting. It's theorized that whales and dolphins actually originated as land animals.

Specifically mesonychids, who evolved from the same ancestor as modern hoofed mammals, yet became carnivores. The tooth structure is basically identical between mesonychids and early whales.

Metaphysical evolution is very commonly known among those who are more familiarized with metaphysics. However, I suggest that standard scientific methods of observation create an inherent block within the minds of scientists, which cause them to miss many observed properties of the universe of metaphysical value. Scientists encounter a great deal of difficulty seeing past their commonly presupposed material world, on the basis of a fundamentally materialistic mindset.

So what? I don't read genetics journals. Doesn't mean I don't believe it or think it's important, only that it's not my speciality, so why bother?

What specifically do you suggest has been ignored?

Not by you, but by ID in general and most of it's proponents. Presented with conclusive evidence they're wrong on specific assertions (like showing them a transitional fossil they claim doesn't exist), they'll simply go on denying it.

Yet you've not observed the full speciation process of stickleback fish, and actually rely moreso on inferences as you suggest.

So? Given the evidence, they're very strong inferences. Nothing's wrong with inference so long as you recognize it as such.

Context please. Are you referring to the common ancestry of humans and apes?

To all evidence in science. Any singular data point is evidence. It's then combined and analyzed using statistics that make most people's heads hurt (which is why we do it by computer now).

If someone (not you) takes crass potshots at me, I will strictly retaliate, unto permanent ban. I hope that I have made myself clear. And I now see that such may eventualy be the direction of this thread, insofar as someone (not you) has ventured to press a conflict. I hope that we can complete this discussion constructively prior to the lock of this thread, but I honestly don't see it going in that direction.

Well, I was sort of trying to use that paragraph to insinuate to other readers that I'm not happy with the tone of their responses in an indirect way, and that you shouldn't take them to be representative. Subtlety has never been my strong point.

'Meta' may commonly mean 'beyond' or 'greater than', and 'physical' simply means 'material'.

OT: I was under the impression "Mega" was "greater than" while "Meta" mean something more like "beside"

Oh, I just automatically object to anything given to me that's offered without substantiation

Well, that's why the "results" section of most science papers is basically nothing but the substantiation.

This is entirely valid when measuring the 'known' laws of material physics, but will invariably be wrong most of the time when attempting to measure that which is above or beyond these laws. For example, gravity observably makes things fall down in our earthly atmosphere. However, not always. Sometimes things fall up, as in the case of supernatural levitation which has been observed by some, albeit not photographed. Very common in out-of-body experiences.

But even in such supernatural levitation, one could still infer that gravity is acting, but merely that another force is acting to lift with a greater magnitude. And astral projection wouldn't matter; gravity is mass-dependent, so anythng without mass won't be affected.

No, it is not. It only seems such, insofar as a 'trick' has been placed on your senses. I'm using a bit of wordplay here. I'm not so much suggesting that what we physically percieve is not reality. Rather, I'm suggesting that this physical reality is not 'as real' as what we commonly observe it to be. We are like ants attempting to measure the macroverse with sticks and rulers, with our laws of physics and various scientific methods.

But if we can't percieve it, why does it matter? To use The Matrix, one could consider the Matrix to be a reality, albeit not the only one.

Incorrect. In fact, I suggest that we are dominated by a greater reality of which we have little or often no awareness whatsoever. This is because you are only perceiving from 10% (or thereabouts) of your brain, while the rest of it is merely operating subconsciously. We are each as sleepwalkers in a stupor, percieving a 'reality' which is better likened to a dream. Again, I'm using a bit of word play here, which may offend some people's sense of intellectual security.

First, the 10% thing is an urban legend. We only use 10% of our brain at once, but it all gets used.

Secondly, as above, why does a reality we cannot perceive matter? If it matters, that means it has some effect, which in turn means it can be observed.

However, contacts have been observed. The lapse is in the scientific equipment available. Cameras, clocks and rulers are not valid measuring devices when attempting to harness that which exists on another plane of physical frequency. However, the human brain itself, in isolation from scientific measuring devices, is sometimes capable of measuring extra- and/or inter-dimensional physical structures.

First, the "physical frequency" thing is incorrect. Second, how do we know these observations are accurate? We see things that aren't there all the time (see any of the many sites online dedicated to optical illusions).

Just read ancient books. Many of the oral traditions contained some extra-ordinary beliefs. Some interesting patterns begin to emerge within ancient belief systems that scientists typically miss. Now if you're looking for 'empirical' evidence that you can photograph (beyond the reading of ancient manuscripts), then you won't find it. We rather have patterns within countless ancient testimonies of a world which in many ways exceeded the understanding of scientists today.

Actually, I meant if there was any evidence for this historical cycle you mentioned being something more than just caused by political shifts and wars.

As for their ancient understanding, we've found things that show understanding of various concepts known to us, but nothing that directly contradicts scientific knowledge and has any real material evidence. Note that non-materialistic stuff doesn't contradict science, but is simply outside of science.

Furthermore, I think it's disrespectful to modern scientists to say the ancients knew more. Find me one single ancient manuscript on snake musculature or biomechanics. They were smart, but so are we.

The reason that you see no need for metaphysical explanations is because you lack a knowledge of non-empirical data. Further, because you have not had the same experiences as 1-10% of the earth's population, you therefore deem such irrelevant. You are embracing the Occam's Razor principle, going with the simplist possible solution as simple minds often do, yet failing to observe all of the significant data, because you erringly believe it to be irrelevant.

Simple is not always necessarily best. Simple is just perhaps the most comfortable. The Occam's Razor principle is often misapplied by the lazy mind, which has failed to evaluate non-empirical data. The shortcoming of empiricism is that you can't make a qualified assessment of a matter or claim, if it falls outside of your personal experience.

Except that in the context of science, non-empirical data *IS* meaningless and irrelevant because that's not what science studies. Just like a paper of microbial genetics is irrelevant to me, because I don't study that.

Why should I accept data I cannot check, data that I have no reason to believe? It could be real, but it could also just be the rantings of a madman.

Then you are not familiar with evidence. Your interpretation becomes colored and sometimes even skewed immediately upon perceiving evidence. This is why two people can look at the exact same thing, and interpret it differently.

But they still *see* the same thing, and *that* is evidence, in the scientific sense.

For instance, we don't know how snakes evolved. The two main theories are from burrowing ancestors or from swimming ones, and neither has enough evidence to overthrow the other (though it's learning more towards swimming these days). Now, let's say we look at a snake's eye. You say "aha, the lens focuses differently from other animals! This supports the theory that they were burrowers who mostly lost their eyes and then re-evolved them". I say "Aha, the lens focuses differently from other animals! This supports the theory they were swimmers and they adapted this method so they could see in water and on land".

We both have different interpretations, but the *evidence* (the oddity of how snake eyes focus) remains the same, despite our biases.

Oh but it can. I may be using the metric system, while you're using old-fashioned feet and inches.

But the two are freely interconvertible, so simply changing the units does not dispute the observation.

The snake is the evidence. The measuring devices or units are not.

Precisely.

In what context? Can you offer a specific example? You mentioned genes.

Well, ancient people only had a rudimentary idea of how inheritance worked. They worked wonders with what knowledge they had, but some aspects always remained puzzling, such as why a trait the father had would not appear in the offspring, but then suddenly re-appear in some (but not all) of the grandkids. Starting with Mendel, science began to elucidate the rules that governed inheritance, and with the discovery of DNA, began to not only truly understand how it works, but also how to influence it (genetic engineering).

Because it produces observable effects. The human brain has commonly even recorded these effects, albeit science lacks the capacity to play back a person's memories on a tv monitor. This is a lapse of science, not of the human brain, however.

Why is it a lapse? As mentioned before, science is simply a speciality. It doesn't preclude other things, but merely doesn't care, much like how I just fell asleep in a lecture about the olfactory genetics of fruit flies.

Witnesses are unreliable? Always? You're making a wild presupposition now. If this is the case, then scientists would make inferior judgments to court judges, because they only look at half the data. They are strictly empirical. The scientist is basically saying that her/his personal experiences and/or observations are valid, and all others are false. Testimonies are no good to the scientist, because no world exists outside of the scientist's own directly empirical observations.

If this is truly the case, (and I would have thought scientists to be smarter than this), then scientists simply toss most of the substantive data available to them directly in the garbage.

No, science is merely saying that the human brain does not work like a tape recorder or computer, and that memory and perception are biased and can produce erroneous results.

Science does not even use a double standard. When I talk about what I've seen snakes do, I *always* preface it with "This is just subjective eyeballing, and I can't be sure until I actually measure it, but...." And I've actually been wrong about things that way, when the data has proven me wrong.

Might there be biases in the recording devices? Sure, but we're pretty sure what those biases are and how to minimize them.

This would constitute a flimsy example in a legal court. For example, in a legal court, the various testimonies would be cross-examined, with inconsistencies weeded out. Afterwhich, certain consistencies would still remain, and be deemed substantive. Just because people sometimes disagree in their testimonies does not make all testimonies on the face of the earth invalid. Patterns of consistency within testimonies are considered to be an 'evidence', albeit an 'evidence' which scientists overlook.

You're strawmanning me. I never said all eyewitness evidence is invalid, only that it is very prone to error and should be treated as such. Your above statement even idicates you agree, since you acknowledge these inconsistencies.

Think of it this way: Imagine you have a map that's wrong 50% of the time (hey, it's Mapquest!). That doesn't mean it's *all* wrong, but it *does* mean you have to use caution and skepticism when using it.

*All* sources of information have biases and error margins, but some are better than others.

This is why you are often incapable of interpreting empirical evidence without presuppositional skew.

Incorrect. My own project is an excellent example of why. Basically, I'm analyzing a mode of snake locomotion used in climbing, and have predictions based on a superficially similar mode used for moving through tunnels. My eyes never come into the picture. I videotape everything, analyze it digitally via computer, then feed those results through spreadsheet calculations and statistics programs.

Why do you suppose this is? Are you smarter than the whole US legal court system? Are scientists smarter than court judges? I doubt it. In fact, I suggest that scientific observation is actually inferior to legal methods of observation in many ways.

It's admissible based on precedent from the dark days before we knew just how bad witnesses are at accuracy.

Of course, you're also assuming that the DNA tests are always correct. Do you have a basis for this?

How about the *millions* of times such tests have performed accurately? there is an error rate in all things, but we *know* the error rate (we calibrate our instruments before we use them, basically).

Scientific observations are often more flawed than testimonies

Wrong, prove it. Seriously, you need to actually back off and look at science, not just what you think science is. Your tone is frustrating me, and while I understand others have made you defensive, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just voice baseless assertions like this.

You'd be making a vast leap to surmise that scientists don't make mistakes, whilst asserting that witnesses are always unreliable.

Claim this in any subsequent post and you will be warned for strawmanning. That is *NOT* what I said.

Scientists can make mistakes, but the procedures used are *less* error prone than simple witness observation.

That's your job. I'm not into the legalistic constraints when we wander into unchartered waters. Please be aware that most threads characteristically evolve into new topics after a freeform approach.

Yes and sometimes they wander too far. You want to know my job here? Have you noticed that my username is in bold? That means I'm a mod. It's my job to make sure topics don't wander too much.

Mokele

phcatlantis · December 9, 2005

Why believe the theory of evolution?

Because its presently evident in all of its active features. Allele frequencies do tend to change from generation to generation. This is easily verified and its easy to search the forums for any number of references substantiating this. If you're asking why we should believe the phylogenic implications of evolution, the only thing I can say is that I don't care enough to worry that I accept it almost entirely on the basis of its sexiness. If you believe the world was created de novo 6000 years ago, more power to you.

What is it's basis?

Nearly a century and a half of experimental and observational evidence. Combined with its elegance and explanatory power when applied to the question of the ancestry of modern species, its a pretty convincing point of view. That is, of course, unless you subscribe to some different cosmology and origins perspective and care enough about what happened 6,000 or more years ago. In which case all the discoveries consistent with evolutionary, geological and cosmological models of the distant past may or may not be enough to interest you.

I think a far more interesting question attaches to education policy; is an unscientific view of the distant past incompatible with the aims of a free, technically proficient, and scientifically curious society that wishes to stay that way? In short, can you be a good scientist and believe the good Lord created the universe and everything in it in six days? That's the debate that gets me excited, and for that reason among others I definitely prefer the company of IDiots to their critics.

Sign In

Why believe the theory of evolution? What is it's basis?

Recommended Posts

elfstone

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

~Agnostic~

~Agnostic~

~Agnostic~

~Agnostic~

~Agnostic~

doG

~Agnostic~

Mokele

~Agnostic~

Celeste22

bascule

~Agnostic~

bascule

~Agnostic~

Mokele

bascule

ecoli

~Agnostic~

~Agnostic~

the tree

insane_alien

~Agnostic~

Mokele

phcatlantis

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Important Information