Scientifically Observed?

[Emilio Primo]

My question is basically since none of these have ever been directly but only have been detected by indirect evidence. Can this truly be considered science?

 

 

Black Holes:

 

You can't see a black hole directly, of course, since light can't get past the horizon. That means that we have to rely on indirect evidence that black holes exist.

 

Suppose you have found a region of space where you think there might be a black hole. How can you check whether there is one or not? The first thing you'd like to do is measure how much mass there is in that region. If you've found a large mass concentrated in a small volume, and if the mass is dark, then it's a good guess that there's a black hole there. There are two kinds of systems in which astronomers have found such compact, massive, dark objects: the centers of galaxies (including perhaps our own Milky Way Galaxy), and X-ray-emitting binary systems in our own Galaxy.

 

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7

 

 

How do you find a black hole if you can't see it? Scientists have found a way out of this dilemma. Black holes exert enormous gravity on nearby objects. Although scientists can't see a black hole, they can see its effects on the surrounding matter.

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/long11.shtml

 

 

Dark matter:

 

Hide and Seek. Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter (4). Actually, "missing matter" may be misleading--it's really the light that is missing (5). Scientists can tell that the dark matter is there, but they cannot see it. Bruce H. Margon, chairman of the astronomy department at the University of Washington, told the New York Times, "It's a fairly embarrassing situation to admit that we can't find 90 percent of the universe" (6). This problem has scientists scrambling to try and find where and what this dark matter is. "What it is, is any body's guess," adds Dr. Margon. "Mother Nature is having a double laugh. She's hidden most of the matter in the universe, and hidden it in a form that can't be seen" (5).

 

 

http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/

 

 

Dark matter — considered one of the most baffling mysteries in science — is believed to make up 20 to 25 percent of the universe, while visible matter makes up only four percent. However, dark matter has never been directly observed, and scientists aren't even exactly sure what kind of particles they are looking for.

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/dark-matter-091709.html

 

 

Evolution:

 

Because for many species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat06.html

 

But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species.

 

 

Can this really be any different that someone looking at indirect evidence and saying "GOD" did it?

[timo]

For dark matter: The additional value is that the amount of god needed is specified and that god has some very simple properties (some mass density and an electric charge of zero). We have yet to figure an efficient mathematical structure that includes the god element. Or to phrase it differently: Scientists do a bit more than to look at an effect then say "that's because of XYZ". You are free to call this additional work (making the numbers match) worthless -some people who always hated math in school might even agree- but it's what makes it different. On the sociological side the advantages are somewhat more obvious: you're not risking eternal damnation for trying to picture dark matter or disagreeing with its prophets.

[DJBruce]

I have not directly observed that you exist. Can I then only make the unscientific assumption that this post must be the work of God?

 

Each of your three examples has been thoroughly research, and supported by numerous different observations. Just because you cannot directly observe something does not mean it cannot be explained by science. The fact that things such as Black Holes interact with the surrounding universe means we are capable of using those interactions to provide evidence for the the existence of black holes.

 

As for your claims that evolution has never been observed that is just plain wrong.

 

Antibiotic Resistance

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection. The rise of Shigella strains resistant to the synthetic antibiotic class of sulfonamides also demonstrates the generation of new information as an evolutionary process.[45] Similarly, the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosquitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution in situations of evolutionary selection pressure in species in which generations occur rapidly.

 

E. coli Long-term Evolution

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment begun in 1988 under the leadership of Richard Lenski is still in progress, and has shown adaptations including the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.

 

Peppered Moth Evolution

One classic example of adaptation in response to selection pressure is the case of the peppered moth. The color of the moth has gone from light to dark to light again over the course of a few hundred years due to the appearance and later disappearance of pollution from the Industrial Revolution in England.

 

Evidence From Observed

Natural Selection

 

William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.

[Emilio Primo]

For dark matter: The additional value is that the amount of god needed is specified and that god has some very simple properties (some mass density and an electric charge of zero). We have yet to figure an efficient mathematical structure that includes the god element. Or to phrase it differently: Scientists do a bit more than to look at an effect then say "that's because of XYZ". You are free to call this additional work (making the numbers match) worthless -some people who always hated math in school might even agree- but it's what makes it different. On the sociological side the advantages are somewhat more obvious: you're not risking eternal damnation for trying to picture dark matter or disagreeing with its prophets.

 

How is this any different from the scientist that look at the DNA molecule, and say it's much too complex to come about by chance, it must have had a designer, hence I.D.

 

They are both ideas based on indirect evidence. You can't directly observe or test dark matter, you can't directly observe or test black holes, you can't directly observe or test GOD... SO what is the difference?

 

I have not directly observed that you exist. Can I then only make the unscientific assumption that this post must be the work of God?

 

Each of your three examples has been thoroughly research, and supported by numerous different observations. Just because you cannot directly observe something does not mean it cannot be explained by science. The fact that things such as Black Holes interact with the surrounding universe means we are capable of using those interactions to provide evidence for the the existence of black holes.

 

As for your claims that evolution has never been observed that is just plain wrong.

 

Antibiotic Resistance

 

 

E. coli Long-term Evolution

 

 

Peppered Moth Evolution

 

 

Evidence From Observed

Natural Selection

 

 

OK, again...

 

Which one of your examples is this:

 

But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[Ophiolite]

They are both ideas based on indirect evidence. You can't directly observe or test dark matter, you can't directly observe or test black holes, you can't directly observe or test GOD... SO what is the difference?

We can compute, with astonishing precision, the detailed behaviour of black holes. From this computation we can make predictions as to things we should and should not observe. When we find, and we do, that the observations match the predictions then we have a heightened sense that our hypothesis is correct. We may then refine the hypothesis further, or come at it from another angle, again with a suite of associated predictions. Once more those predictions will be borne out and our confidence in the hypothesis is strengthened.

 

Sometimes the predictions will not be borne out. Conflciting evidence will be found. This offers a rich opportunity to scientists. The anomaly is investigated. The hypothesis is then either abandoned or modified. (Occasionally the apparent anomaly turns out to be an obervational or intrepretational error.)

 

At every stage a careful structure of observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, and further observation, builds up a network of ideas, formulae, experiments, and observations that substantiate the underlying thesis.

 

The same is even more true of evolution and much less true of dark matter, and not true at all of God. That is the difference.

[DJBruce]

 

OK, again...

 

Which one of your examples is this:

 

But we have yet to observe the evolution of a species into a new and different species.

 

Hmm from the link entitled Evidence From Observed Natural Selection:

 

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. Speciation can occur from a variety of different causes and are classified in various forms (e.g. allopatric, sympatric, polyploidization, etc). Scientists have observed numerous examples of speciation in the laboratory and in nature, however, evolution has produced far more species than an observer would consider necessary.

 

The Sylvia atricapillab, commonly referred to as Blackcaps, lives in Germany and flies southwest to Spain while a smaller group flies northwest to Great Britain during the winter. The smaller blackcap population only recently rerouted to Spain. Gregor Rolshausen from the University of Freiburg found that the genetic separation of the two populations is already in progress. The differences found have arisen in about 30 generations. With DNA sequencing, the individuals can be assigned to a correct group with an 85% accuracy. Stuart Bearhop from the University of Exeter reported that birds wintering in England tend to mate only among themselves, and not usually with those wintering in the Mediterranean. (Bearhop et al. 2005) It is still inference to say that the populations will become two different species, but experts deduce that it is expected due to the continued genetic and geographic separation.

 

And as I quoted in my previous post:

William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats.

 

Here is a site with a bunch of examples of speciation with references.

 

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

 

Here is another site with

examples of speciation.

 

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

 

So there are numerous different examples of speciation being observed. Although I am not sure why I continue to debate something I am unable to directly observe since I cannot be sure it actually exists. B)

Edited August 5, 2010 by DJBruce

[timo]

You can't directly observe or test dark matter, you can't directly observe or test black holes, you can't directly observe or test GOD... SO what is the difference?

For dark matter: The additional value is that the amount of god needed is specified and that god has some very simple properties (some mass density and an electric charge of zero). We have yet to figure an efficient mathematical structure that includes the god element. Or to phrase it differently: Scientists do a bit more than to look at an effect then say "that's because of XYZ". You are free to call this additional work (making the numbers match) worthless -some people who always hated math in school might even agree- but it's what makes it different. On the sociological side the advantages are somewhat more obvious: you're not risking eternal damnation for trying to picture dark matter or disagreeing with its prophets.

EDIT: To be fair, the down-sides of the scientific approach should also be mentioned: "Dark matter did it" does not work as a generic answer to all questions .

Edited August 5, 2010 by timo

[Mr Skeptic]

Black holes are the direct result of following our current theories of gravity to their logical conclusion. There were black holes proposed under Newtonian gravity as well as under General Relativity. Our theories of gravity have evidence for them, but that doesn't mean they won't break down in extreme cases. For example, the theories predict a singularity in the center of a black hole, but most scientists treat that as a breakdown of the theory. We've seen stuff that should be a black hole according to our theories, and acts like a black hole should according to our theories.

 

Dark matter is an application of our theories of gravity. Either gravity does not work like we think it does at large scales, or there is dark matter. A lot of people are uneasy about dark matter -- we don't even know what it is. However, it is important to gather data about dark matter -- either it tells us where the dark matter is if it exists, or it conveniently stores data about where our theories of gravity are failing if dark matter doesn't really exist. Lots of people are attempting to find a way to directly detect dark matter, while others are trying to create some in the lab to identify which of several proposed particles dark matter is as well as proving its existence.

 

Evolution we see happening. The process, though slow, is ongoing. This is more of a case of saying the Grand Canyon couldn't have formed by erosion because we never see erosion digging something a mile deep and 18 miles wide.

[swansont]

How is this any different from the scientist that look at the DNA molecule, and say it's much too complex to come about by chance, it must have had a designer, hence I.D.

 

That's not the position of the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, and is not representative of the theory it is meant to replace. i.e. it is not actually proposed that DNA came about by chance. Evolution is not random.

 

 

They are both ideas based on indirect evidence. You can't directly observe or test dark matter, you can't directly observe or test black holes, you can't directly observe or test GOD... SO what is the difference?

 

 

This is wrong — you can test for dark matter and black holes. There is a model of how they interact with things, and you can see if reality conforms to the model and vice-versa. What nobody has been able to do thus far is come up with an objective test for God, wherein you can predict its behavior to high precision, under different sets of circumstances (in some way that distinguishes it from how just-plain-nature is already know to behave).

 

Much of science (physics, at least) these days is based on indirect tests and measurements. I can't see atoms with my own eyes, but I have tools that interact with them and produce signals that are processed by electronics into a form that I can understand. I can check to confirm that the signals follow the model that I have. All of this is indirect.

[Emilio Primo]

Hmm from the link entitled Evidence From Observed Natural Selection:

 

 

 

 

 

And as I quoted in my previous post:

 

 

Here is a site with a bunch of examples of speciation with references.

 

 

 

Here is another site with

examples of speciation.

 

 

 

So there are numerous different examples of speciation being observed. Although I am not sure why I continue to debate something I am unable to directly observe since I cannot be sure it actually exists. B)

 

 

OK, post back when you come across what I asked for...

 

the evolution of a species into a new and different species

 

I have not directly observed that you exist. Can I then only make the unscientific assumption that this post must be the work of God?

 

Each of your three examples has been thoroughly research, and supported by numerous different observations. Just because you cannot directly observe something does not mean it cannot be explained by science. The fact that things such as Black Holes interact with the surrounding universe means we are capable of using those interactions to provide evidence for the the existence of black holes.

 

As for your claims that evolution has never been observed that is just plain wrong.

 

Really, how can you research something you have never seen nor observed. The only things you can observe research and study is the evidence that leads you to this conclusion, NOT the conclusion in itself.

 

You said it yourself, "we study the interactions, NOT the black hole itself.

[DJBruce]

OK, post back when you come across what I asked for...

 

the evolution of a species into a new and different species

 

Did you read any of the pages I linked to? Did you look at any of the quotes I posted? If you read any of them you would realize that I gave you numerous examples of exactly that. Please show me how the examples I gave are not the creation of new species from evolution.

[Emilio Primo]

That's not the position of the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, and is not representative of the theory it is meant to replace. i.e. it is not actually proposed that DNA came about by chance. Evolution is not random.

 

I didn't say it was the position of the vast majority of scientist in the field, but even still what difference does that make. There are scientist who do take the position I claimed.

 

Some scientist do not believe it is possible for the DNA to have evolved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is wrong — you can test for dark matter and black holes. There is a model of how they interact with things, and you can see if reality conforms to the model and vice-versa. What nobody has been able to do thus far is come up with an objective test for God, wherein you can predict its behavior to high precision, under different sets of circumstances (in some way that distinguishes it from how just-plain-nature is already know to behave).

 

No, it's not wrong. You cannot test dark matter and black holes, what you can test is the evidence that leads you to the conclusion of dark matter and black holes.

 

Much of science (physics, at least) these days is based on indirect tests and measurements. I can't see atoms with my own eyes, but I have tools that interact with them and produce signals that are processed by electronics into a form that I can understand. I can check to confirm that the signals follow the model that I have. All of this is indirect.

 

 

But we HAVE seen atoms, this is a fact. Atoms have been directly observed.

 

Did you read any of the pages I linked to? Did you look at any of the quotes I posted? If you read any of them you would realize that I gave you numerous examples of exactly that. Please show me how the examples I gave are not the creation of new species from evolution.

 

OK...

 

The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection. The rise of Shigella strains resistant to the synthetic antibiotic class of sulfonamides also demonstrates the generation of new information as an evolutionary process.[45] Similarly, the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosquitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution in situations of evolutionary selection pressure in species in which generations occur rapidly.

 

 

Plants remained plants, mosquitoes remained mosquitoes, rabbits are still rabbits...

 

Please demonstrate how anyone of these evolved into a new and different species...

 

 

Experimental evolution uses controlled experiments to test hypotheses and theories of evolution. In one early example, William Dallinger set up an experiment shortly before 1880, subjecting microbes to heat with the aim of forcing adaptive changes. His experiment ran for around seven years, and his published results were acclaimed, but he did not resume the experiment after the apparatus failed.[46]

 

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment begun in 1988 under the leadership of Richard Lenski is still in progress, and has shown adaptations including the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.

 

E. coli is still E. coli....ect, ect ,ect

Edited August 5, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[DJBruce]

I didn't say it was the position of the vast majority of scientist in the field, but even still what difference does that make. There are scientist who do take the position I claimed.

 

Some scientist do not believe it is possible for the DNA to have evolved.

 

Some scientists think that evolution is wrong and that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old. Luckily science does not care what you or a scientist thinks. It cares for what a scientist can prove and defend with evidence.

 

 

But we HAVE seen atoms, this is a fact. Atoms have been directly observed.

 

Nope, you have not seen an atom. I can guarantee you have not directly observed an atom.

[Emilio Primo]

Some scientists think that evolution is wrong and that the Earth is only a couple of thousand years old. Luckily science does not care what you or a scientist thinks. It cares for what a scientist can prove and defend with evidence.

 

 

Some scientist think that the big bang birthed the universe, did science prove that?

 

 

 

Nope, you have not seen an atom. I can guarantee you have not directly observed an atom.

 

 

Has the Atom ever been observed directly?

[DJBruce]

Plants remained plants, mosquitoes remained mosquitoes, rabbits are still rabbits...

 

Please demonstrate how anyone of these evolved into a new and different species...

 

You do realize that not all plant, all mosquitoes, all rabbits are from the same species. I feel like giving you more examples of speciation will not do anything until you take the time to fully understand what it means for a population to become a new species. So I would suggest you take time and read something similar to this article, and then come back and say their are no examples of specieation.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If there is a table here, light will bounce off of it and some will enter my eyes. I can test this to see if this is true.

 

If there is a black hole here, nearby matter will be sucked in. I can test to see if this is true.

 

What, exactly, is the difference?

[Emilio Primo]

If there is a table here, light will bounce off of it and some will enter my eyes. I can test this to see if this is true.

 

If there is a black hole here, nearby matter will be sucked in. I can test to see if this is true.

 

What, exactly, is the difference?

 

Light, has been observed, studied, the table has been observed studied, your eyes have been observed, studied. A black hole has not, that's the difference.

 

You do realize that not all plant, all mosquitoes, all rabbits are from the same species. I feel like giving you more examples of speciation will not do anything until you take the time to fully understand what it means for a population to become a new species. So I would suggest you take time and read something similar to this article, and then come back and say their are no examples of specieation.

 

I do realize that even though each one had "evolved" do to circumstance they all remained their respective species, not one evolved into entirely new and different species, no descendants of any species has ever been observed evolving into a different and new species.

 

BTW, I read that article already.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Emilio Primo

[DJBruce]

I do realize that even though each one had "evolved" do to circumstance they all remained their respective species, not one evolved into entirely new and different species, no descendants of any species has ever been observed evolving into a different and new species.

 

BTW, I read that article already.

 

If you read that article you would have noticed the line where it states:

 

One advantage of the BSC is that it provides a reasonably unambiguous test that can be applied to possible speciation events. Recall that under the BSC species are defined as being reproductively isolated from other species

 

If you would then look at the items I posted:

 

With reference to the Drosophila melanogaster experiment:

 

After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains.

 

With reference to the London Underground Mosquito,

 

When the two varieties were cross-bred the eggs were infertile suggesting reproductive isolation.

 

Ergo there were new species formed through evolution.

[Emilio Primo]

If you read that article you would have noticed the line where it states:

 

 

 

If you would then look at the items I posted:

 

With reference to the Drosophila melanogaster experiment:

 

 

 

With reference to the London Underground Mosquito,

 

 

 

Ergo there were new species formed through evolution.

 

They were STILL the SAME species, one was just infertile. Where is evolution to a new and different species?

[swansont]

I didn't say it was the position of the vast majority of scientist in the field, but even still what difference does that make. There are scientist who do take the position I claimed.

 

Some scientist do not believe it is possible for the DNA to have evolved.

 

And there are scientists who think relativity is wrong. But they do not have evidence to back them up, and that's what counts. "I don't believe it's possible" is argument from incredulity, not evidence, and is not anywhere near saying that it violates an established physical law.

 

 

 

 

No, it's not wrong. You cannot test dark matter and black holes, what you can test is the evidence that leads you to the conclusion of dark matter and black holes.

 

 

 

 

But we HAVE seen atoms, this is a fact. Atoms have been directly observed.

 

 

 

Citation? This is news to me. I'll bet it involved electronic instrumentation rather than direct observation.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Light, has been observed, studied, the table has been observed studied, your eyes have been observed, studied. A black hole has not, that's the difference.

What does "observed" even mean?

 

To observe a table, light from that table enters my eyes. Right? If it's a table, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my eyes (showing legs, a flat surface, and so on), and my sensory apparatus would compare what does enter to what I know about tables.

 

To observe a black hole, light (and x-rays, and radio waves, and so on) enters my telescope. Right? If it's a black hole, I'd expect a certain pattern of light to enter my telescope (showing matter being ingested, an accretion disk, and so on), and my computers would compare what does enter to what I know about black holes.

 

What's the difference?

 

Don't say "observed," because I don't know how you define it. What is the substantive difference between the two scenarios above?

[DJBruce]

They were STILL the SAME species, one was just infertile. Where is evolution to a new and different species?

 

They are not the same species. If they were the same species they would not be reproductively isolated from one another. The fact that the different populations are reproductively isolated means that evolution/speciation has occurred and new species have been formed.

 

BTW, infertility is a type of post-zygotic reproductive isolation.

[CharonY]

Much of science (physics, at least) these days is based on indirect tests and measurements.

 

I wouldn't know a single analytical technique that requires some kind of interaction and is thus indirect. Not even our senses provide direct measurements (and we have to, one way or another plug the measurements into our senses, even if it is just via a screen).

 

Despite the fact that it has indeed been observed species is a lousy hallmark of evolution. This is in fact the case because evolution happens and results in gradual changes within and between populations. However the species concept is something we plug on top of it for easy classifications purposes. It is only partially matched by nature. It is especially appalling when we go down to bacteria, for instance.

Edited August 5, 2010 by CharonY

[Sayonara]

Emilio, the occurrence (or not) of speciation is not dependent on your approval.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

[Ophiolite]

So Emilio, when did you see God?