Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 0:40:16 GMT -4
The point is to answer the question about predictions of the ToE. One prediction was that further knowledge would confirm common decent. The field of molecular biology has met that prediction in a way that was not even in the realm of knowledge in Darwin's time. Not unaltered. The theory has been re-tailored from time to time to match the evidence as it has come to light. And of course, molecular biology is still a very new field, and things that might be taken as evidence of common descent was one of the first things they looked for. Whether it is reasonable or not is of course an opinion. Since I'm not a biologist it doesn't particularly matter whether I remain a skeptic or not, so I'll take the side I prefer.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 16, 2008 3:09:45 GMT -4
The theory has been re-tailored from time to time to match the evidence as it has come to light.
Uh, no. Perhaps I'm understanding to this statement in a way other than you intended, but this basic argument is waved about by the "evolution debunking" crowd, as if a) it shows the weakness of the theory of evolution and/or b) shows that the scientists are intellectually dishonest.
In fact, it shows neither, but represents the recursive scientific process of "accumulation of knowledge" at it's best. As opposed to the process of "ignoring of knowledge" which can be done in one simple step, repeat an nauseum for 50 to 5000 years, as applicable. Using the above as an argument against evolution is intellectually dishonest, or at least disingenuous.
"Darwinian Evolution" was more-or-less revised once, to what is now called "neo-Darwinian." It may have taken 3 steps to complete, but was in response to 1 fact and several ramifications. Darwin understood the basic idea of evolution before anyone knew how traits are transmitted from generation to generation.
First, the molecular storage of physical traits. Genetic information stored in the cells. Second, independent assortment, or how traits get shuffled during breeding over generations. Third, allele frequency, or the number of occurrences of a trait in a population, both static and dynamic. I don't even think statistics was a science when Darwin first observed similar but different species across a group of islands.
Here's how it works, shortly. Let's say you and I are ungulates on the savanna. Your tongue is the longest in the herd, by about 1/4". Not much, but enough that you get to eat a few more leaves than every other member of our herd. Except for me. My neck is about 1/4" longer than every one else. We both contribute our genes to the herd, including these traits. The two traits have a frequency of occurrence in the herd: not every one has it, and not everyone carrying the genetic code for it expresses the trait. Maybe the trait for long tongue is paired with a trait for a thicker tongue. One of these is "recessive" and the other isn't. It's a kind of dominance and submission thing, with traits trumping one another. In humans, it can be seen in earlobe shape. In earlobes neither attached nor detached is beneficial over the other, so all the variations exist in the gene pool.
Anyway, eventually the trait for long tongue and long neck become more frequent in the herd, because it means the carrier can eat more, is healthier, and can breed more successfully. The two traits come together at some point, and those individuals are REALLY going after the acacia leaves! Pretty soon, the short members of the tribe have stopped hanging out with us, they go eat somewhere else.
Now rinse-and-repeat this feedback loop of successful eating for 10 million (yes, million!) generations. We're the giraffes, and those other guys are the okapi. Everyone else from that original herd is some kind of deer or cow. We cannot interbreed. Speciation.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 16, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -4
The wings of insects, birds, and bats are all wings. However, the wings of birds are more similar to the front arms of their reptile cousins than they are to insectile wings, and the wings of bats are more similar to the membranes of flying squirrels than they are to bird wings. But, continuing the theme, the wings of birds, bats and even extinct pterosaurs show a great deal of similarity to the arms of virtually every other vertebrate including man. In all cases the humerus, radius and ulna are clearly present, with the variation occuring in the hand region. Birds have a collection of bones that end in a stump, but nonetheless resemble wrist bones; bats' wings are membranes of skin supported between incredibly elongated fingers, and the bone structure is almost identical to the human hand except for the great length of the phalanges; pterosaur wings are supported on an even more absurdly elongated little finger, but the rest of the hand is still present, making a claw partway along the wing leading edge. The comparison and similarity is fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 16, 2008 8:07:56 GMT -4
The point is to answer the question about predictions of the ToE. One prediction was that further knowledge would confirm common decent. The field of molecular biology has met that prediction in a way that was not even in the realm of knowledge in Darwin's time. Not unaltered. The theory has been re-tailored from time to time to match the evidence as it has come to light. Again, that's precisely how science works. The point is not whether the theory remains intact as it was originally conceived, but whether the basic tenets of the theory still apply. Darwinian evolution by natural selection may have had to be modified over the past century, but the basic premise remains: natural environmental factors lead to adaptation and eventually differentiation of species.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 16, 2008 10:59:57 GMT -4
Since I'm not a biologist it doesn't particularly matter whether I remain a skeptic or not, so I'll take the side I prefer.
Lets rephrase this a little.
Since I'm not a engineer it doesn't particularly matter whether I remain a skeptic or not, so I'll take the side about Apollo I prefer.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you consider it intellectually reasonable to pick a side on an issue that can be investigated on the basis of facts based on preference for the outcome rather than learning about the facts of the matter?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 12:30:20 GMT -4
Again, that's precisely how science works. The point is not whether the theory remains intact as it was originally conceived, but whether the basic tenets of the theory still apply. Darwinian evolution by natural selection may have had to be modified over the past century, but the basic premise remains: natural environmental factors lead to adaptation and eventually differentiation of species. My basic point was not to accuse scientists of being dishonest, merely to note that Darwin's predictions become less amazing when you realize they weren't all exactly fulfilled, even though his basic principle has not been overturned.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 16, 2008 12:33:43 GMT -4
Again, that's precisely how science works. The point is not whether the theory remains intact as it was originally conceived, but whether the basic tenets of the theory still apply. Darwinian evolution by natural selection may have had to be modified over the past century, but the basic premise remains: natural environmental factors lead to adaptation and eventually differentiation of species. My basic point was not to accuse scientists of being dishonest, merely to note that Darwin's predictions become less amazing when you realize they weren't all exactly fulfilled, even though his basic principle has not been overturned. Again, wrong. He described the effect without knowing the underlying mechanism. More amazing, not less. "Facts" like this come from the "evolution debunking" crowd and are not true.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 12:35:05 GMT -4
Since I'm not a engineer it doesn't particularly matter whether I remain a skeptic or not, so I'll take the side about Apollo I prefer. Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you consider it intellectually reasonable to pick a side on an issue that can be investigated on the basis of facts based on preference for the outcome rather than learning about the facts of the matter? Sure. If I'm not an aerospace engineer then it really doesn't matter whether I understand the technology behind Apollo, does it? I might be out of line if I start making money off a false position, or wrongfully accusing people of intellectual dishonesty, but if it's just a personal opinion of mine then it's not really hurting anyone, is it? Although I would add that I find disbelief in Apollo to be rather unreasonable on the face of it. There simply isn't anywhere near the wiggle room for a contrary opinion with Apollo that there is with evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 16, 2008 18:57:36 GMT -4
My basic point was not to accuse scientists of being dishonest, merely to note that Darwin's predictions become less amazing when you realize they weren't all exactly fulfilled, even though his basic principle has not been overturned. How is that less amazing? He made predictions that, decades or centuries later, turned out not to be precise, but with the limited resources he had that's surely only to be expected? It in no way detracts from the truly groundbreaking work he did at the time. Indeed, since no mechanism for heredity had been identified at the time it becomes even more amazing. And frankly, given the enormous problems of conscience he found himself battling precisely because his own logical conclusions conflicted so sharply with his personal and religious beliefs, I find it ever more amazing. Do you consider Galileo to be less of an amazing or important scientist because he got a few things wrong? How about Newton's inability to correctly calculate the precession of Mercury's orbit? Does that detract from his brilliance as a scientist? Why should the fact that, in the mid 1800's, before any theory of gentic inheritance was formulated and well before any such ability to sequence genes and compare genotypes of whole organisms, Darwin made some predictions that turned out to be not totally accurate make his work less impressive?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 16, 2008 19:18:38 GMT -4
There simply isn't anywhere near the wiggle room for a contrary opinion with Apollo that there is with evolution. I would disagree. You fabricate your own wiggle room by denying or ignoring science. Just like the HB's.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 19:25:58 GMT -4
And frankly, given the enormous problems of conscience he found himself battling precisely because his own logical conclusions conflicted so sharply with his personal and religious beliefs, I find it ever more amazing. From what I've heard there was not much conflict between the implications of Darwin's theories and his own personal religious beliefs. Of course, he had to live in a society much more religious than our own, and so had to exert more effort to get along with his contemporaries. Obviously if someone gets some things wrong he is less impressive than someone who got everything right, even if the second person doesn't actually exist. Yes, if you made mistakes you are less brilliant and less amazing than you would have been if you had not made mistakes. This seems largely self-evident. Likewise if you acheive more when you have more handicaps you are more amazing and brilliant. The earlier point seemed to be banking on the idea that Darwin hadn't gotten anything wrong, which is why I made my reply.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 19:28:42 GMT -4
There simply isn't anywhere near the wiggle room for a contrary opinion with Apollo that there is with evolution. I would disagree. You fabricate your own wiggle room by denying or ignoring science. Just like the HB's. And I disagree with your disagreement. Apollo probably has more still-existing documentation and witnesses for it than any similar historical event. That leaves much less room to question its details than many other historical events.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 17, 2008 6:03:14 GMT -4
Obviously if someone gets some things wrong he is less impressive than someone who got everything right, even if the second person doesn't actually exist. Yes, if you made mistakes you are less brilliant and less amazing than you would have been if you had not made mistakes. This seems largely self-evident. Or at least it would be self-evident if you apply the arbitrary condition of everyone having the same tools and understanding to start with. The point is not about making mistakes, which implies having all the information and still getting it wrong, but about what was achieved with what was available. I really don't see how you read that into the comment, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 17, 2008 11:12:22 GMT -4
My basic point was not to accuse scientists of being dishonest, merely to note that Darwin's predictions become less amazing when you realize they weren't all exactly fulfilled, even though his basic principle has not been overturned. This is a standard ploy of religious based evolution deniers. It seems to come from the belief in the inerrancy of their own religion in a wide array of matters. It begs that question. It also focus on Darwin, as if he were the god of evolution. A scientific theory need not be universally inerrant to be accurate and useful. It simply needs to be accurate within its scope. All science is subject to revision, including improvements in accuracy and broadening of scope. This really bugs the religious deniers because they have this false notion that they have an explanation of the material world that is both universal and unchanging.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2008 11:18:36 GMT -4
Likewise if you acheive more when you have more handicaps you are more amazing and brilliant. Darwin was "handicapped" by the lack of a good explanation for the mechanism of inheritance. Regardless, he saw it's effects in the natural world.
The earlier point seemed to be banking on the idea that Darwin hadn't gotten anything wrong, which is why I made my reply. Who said that? When?
|
|