Qs on evolution (split from scientific "community")

[B. John Jones]

 

Those seem like reasonable examples of evolution by natural selection. Why do you reject them?

 

 

Of course organisms reproduce their own "kinds". What do you expect? A fish to give birth to a lion?

 

But if by "kind" you mean species, then perhaps you are looking for cases where we have seen new species arise? You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

(Don't worry, if you go through all of those and reject them one by one for various reasons, there are plenty more to keep you busy.)

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure. New races of human beings came to be, but human beings have always been human beings. Features might change, but we remain human beings. I might even change my hairstyle as a chameleon would put on camouflage. Long-term, familial-communal change is comparable to short-term, individual change. Things change. The nature of things do not.

[Strange]

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure.

 

Yes. That is what is technically known as "evolution".

 

New races of human beings came to be, but human beings have always been human beings. Features might change, but we remain human beings. I might even change my hairstyle as a chameleon would put on camouflage. Long-term, familial-communal change is comparable to short-term, individual change. Things change. The nature of things do not.

 

So you are just going to ignore the provided evidence, in favour of your opinion. Sad. You should open your eyes to how amazing the world is.

[Greg H.]

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure.

That doesn't mean they haven't evolved into a new species. The Darwinian finches you're alluding to are differentiated by their beaks precisely because each one evolved to live in a particular ecological niche where there was less competition for food. Are they still birds? Of course they are - if you expected anything else, then you're sadly misinformed. But it's a bit like saying a goliath bird eater and a corn spider are the same "kind" because they're both spiders.

 

The simple fact is, evolution happens. We have large numbers of examples - bacterial resistance to antibiotics is one currently (pardon the pun) evolving situation directly demonstrating organisms evolving to better suit their environment.

[Arete]

A colony of birds' beaks changing structure is a beautiful thing to observe, but the colony of birds hasn't changed into something other than a colony of birds with changed beak structure. New races of human beings came to be, but human beings have always been human beings. Features might change, but we remain human beings. I might even change my hairstyle as a chameleon would put on camouflage. Long-term, familial-communal change is comparable to short-term, individual change. Things change. The nature of things do not.

 

When someone has equated a change in hairstyle with speciation, any possibility for sensible discourse on the topic of evolution is pretty much gone.

[Delta1212]

Where do you draw a line between "kinds" anyway? Is a lobster the same kind as a shrimp? How about a crab? Are they all the same kind as land spiders? How about scorpions? Insects? Centipedes? Millipedes? Worms?

 

Are mammals all the same kind? Are vertebrates? Are apes?

 

How do you define the boundaries of a "kind."

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

Fundamentally, a species is as precise as the taxonomy of creatures gets. You guys call humans "homo-sapiens." Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. These might be compared (by folks who judge merely on a scientific basis) to your chihuahuas and great danes. But remember, the races and nationalities are not by technology but by nature (if judged by a scientific basis), whereas the various "breeds" of creatures are by human technology. Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption.

"Beyond this, of course, we have races and nationalities, tribes and clans, etc. "

We have, and those are known to be unscientific, so I guess we can ignore them.

If you want scientific terms for the heritable differences within dogs you could go with breed or strain.

But the thing is that a wistar rat can breed with a sprague dawley rat, and given a chance- they will.

And, as I pointed out- yet you refused to learn- a chihuahua cant' get a Great Dane pregnant.

 

So there is a fundamental difference between the two classifications.

 

"Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. "

Is clearly nonsense; it's an observation that nature changes.

On the other hand

"Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. And again, that's presumption, not mere assumption."

is true because this part "Modern science always presumes that because our technologies evolve, nature evolves. " is a presumption as you say- but it's you doing the presumption.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

Key point: the fact of evolution has been known about for millennia -- ever since people domesticated plants and animals.

 

There have been theories about how it works for just as long. Most of these don't really work (e.g. Lamark). But Wallace and Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection, based on existing ideas and their own observations. Experiments and observations have largely confirmed the basic idea, but various extensions and changes have been made ('cos that's how science works).

 

We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

 

Evolution, by definition, occurs by inertia, not momentum. Domestication of creatures involves forces outside of inertia--human manipulation, invention, technology. Darwin presented this known fact in the first part of Origin of Species, which was useful reading. "Speciation," however, is an exaggeration and presumption.

 

Domestication is technological. Technologies evolve as a matter of inertia only because humans are naturally inclined to invent things in nature. But nature itself never evolves as a matter of inertia when humans are removed. Even human nature is the same. Inventiveness is a natural tendency of human beings. Fashions and features change. Nature is fixed.

[Arete]

"Speciation," however, is an exaggeration and presumption.

 

You have already been shown that speciation has been directly observed. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away, nor does shifting the goalposts or obfuscating.

 

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation

[Strange]

But nature itself never evolves as a matter of inertia when humans are removed.

 

 

As you have been shown the evidence that this is not the case, this is obviously a deliberate lie.

[B. John Jones]

We also understand the genetic mechanisms now, which nether Wallace or Darwin nor any of their predecessors did.

 

DNA-systems are like the skeletal-muscular (sic) systems, or muscular-intraskeletal systems; brain-neuro-intramuscular systems, CPU-computing systems; except that DNA is the most advanced stage of molecular-biological understanding science has arrived at (pardon the grammar). In fact, atoms are far more composite than science understands.

 

 

As you have been shown the evidence that this is not the case, this is obviously a deliberate lie.

 

Oh, so you've removed the influence of human beings in a testing environment, or in an observed ecosystem?

 

You have already been shown that speciation has been directly observed. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away, nor does shifting the goalposts or obfuscating.

 

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Observed_speciation

 

It's very good that you're a scientist and not a teacher. How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it? If I were subordinate to you, I would probably not enjoy science class. Yet I would still challenge your views, respectfully.

[Arete]

 

It's very good that you're a scientist and not a teacher. How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it?

 

I do teach at the college level. I'd tell you that you're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Strange]

It's very good that you're a scientist and not a teacher. How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it? If I were subordinate to you, I would probably not enjoy science class. Yet I would still challenge your views, respectfully.

 

 

I would respect someone who challenged established science with evidence.

 

But just ignoring the evidence is not worthy of respect. Wilful ignorance is not something to be proud of.

[Phi for All]

How would you respond to students who respect convention, but are more inclined to challenge it?

 

I think this is perhaps a problem in academia these days. There are many, like you, who seem to view the challenge as more important than actually having evidence to support it. Convention is convention for a reason, because it's usually the current best explanation. I find most objections to mainstream knowledge aren't rationally based, or are formed from misunderstanding the science involved.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

I would respect someone who challenged established science with evidence.

 

But just ignoring the evidence is not worthy of respect. Wilful ignorance is not something to be proud of.

 

I assume rather, you would respect someone who challenged scientific claims only if their evidence were established through science.

 

That's like a chef respecting cooks who break from cookbooks only if other chefs respect the break from the same cookbooks.

 

Soul-food don't work that way.

 

I think this is perhaps a problem in academia these days. There are many, like you, who seem to view the challenge as more important than actually having evidence to support it. Convention is convention for a reason, because it's usually the current best explanation. I find most objections to mainstream knowledge aren't rationally based, or are formed from misunderstanding the science involved.

 

Rations entail cost-benefit analysis. It costs far more, and yields far less, to strictly adhere to a single line of logic, than to adhere to more artistic science, which depends more on improvisation (jazz), especially intuition.

Edited June 9, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Phi for All]

Rations entail cost-benefit analysis. It costs far more, and yields far less, to strictly adhere to a single line of logic, than to adhere to more artistic science, which depends more on improvisation (jazz), especially intuition.

 

It's very good indeed then that science isn't such a single line. And that it has a far better track record than intuition and improvisation. Scientific method, or "winging it"? I'll go with the rational methodology.

[B. John Jones]

Improvisation and intuition is based on factual information coupled with best judgment--there's exactly one perfect judgment in life. Quite often, we judge with moments to spare. If you have 10 years to decide, or 10 seconds, or a tenth of a second, you'll use intuition. Merely choosing a premise or hypothesis entails intuition.

[Daecon]

And that's the problem. There's no guarantee that "best judgement" is correct judgement. That's why we use the scientific method to investigate stuff.

[Arete]

Improvisation and intuition is based on factual information coupled with best judgment-

 

"Well the data were very convincing and the analyses all highly significant, so we were about to write it up for Nature, but then damn Watkins called 'intuition' because he didn't want to miss his Saturday golf game, and we had to reject the study in its entirety."

[B. John Jones]

 

It's very good indeed then that science isn't such a single line. And that it has a far better track record than intuition and improvisation. Scientific method, or "winging it"? I'll go with the rational methodology.

Modern science admits one class of evidence--evidence deemed acceptable by science.

 

Government courts, having long outlived modern science, admits scientific evidence, and many alternative classes of evidence. Smience unfortunately admits only her own interpretations and judgments. One line.

[arc]

Modern science admits one class of evidence--evidence deemed acceptable by science.

 

Government courts, having long outlived modern science, admits scientific evidence, and many alternative classes of evidence. Smience unfortunately admits only her own interpretations and judgments. One line.

 

 

 

John, a thread was started on this forum today, the poster asked if members believed in the death penalty. Since the introduction of DNA evidence there have been an unprecedented level of exonerated people released from death row. These people were tried and convicted on what we could refer to as "jazzy" evidence.

 

Their demise had been decided by an ensemble of bad police work and an indifferent prosecution, who all I'm sure, believed the accused were guilty. The evidence that was presented to the jury in many of these cases was provided by a jail house informant who was rewarded in some way for their testimony.

 

These people gained their freedom, their lives, from pure science based evidence. Evidence that could not be deluded by the judicial incompetence that lead to the original injustice. This evidence left no doubt of their innocence.

 

Someday you may find yourself in similar dire circumstances, would you prefer the jazzy freestyle investigation and prosecution, or would you rather bet entrust your life on the clear and concise evidence provided by a forensic scientist.

 

John, you are mistaken in your concept of science, its not the group of scientists that form an accepted standard that holds sway, it is the scientifically derived evidence that holds them. The same evidence that would keep you from being wrongly put to death.

[Strange]

 

I assume rather, you would respect someone who challenged scientific claims only if their evidence were established through science.

 

That's like a chef respecting cooks who break from cookbooks only if other chefs respect the break from the same cookbooks.

 

Soul-food don't work that way.

 

 

As usual, you assume wrongly. And your analogy makes no sense.

 

So, situation normal.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

The lack of science and continual assertion of unproven / unprovable ideas is just unacceptable for the main fora.

 

B John Jones. Whilst you will find many places in RL and on the internet that allow you to make unchallenged affirmations (many of which are clearly inspired by your faith) this is not one of them. We insist on a minimum level of debate which you are consistently failing to reach across multiple threads.

 

Please also refrain from making any personal comments about members - especially impugning one of our most active and respected experts - I will make known here that Arete has taught me a huge amount here on this forum and I believe he is a superb communicator and educator.

 

I am locking this thread as the argument has run down to a base level with no real input from one side.