Evolution: Why Has it Stopped?

Off Topic
121

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Creationists and Scientific Logic
Scott Anderson

Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better?

Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted.

The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science.

It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories - science is a unit.

To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats.

How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories - a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world - would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

We’ve been through that before - it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.

I know this is more of a statement on creationism, but the last part makes a good statement about science and why writing evolution off as mere “theory” is bull.

Also read this:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

And accept the fact that while evolution may be overturned in your lifetime, it won’t be by YOU - the armchair scientist.[/quote]

LOL! Nice strawman!

This is off topic we are not discussing creation. We are debating the strengths and weaknesses of Evo theory.

122

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Creationists and Scientific Logic
Scott Anderson

Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better?

Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted.

The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science.

It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories - science is a unit.

To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats.

How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories - a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world - would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

We’ve been through that before - it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.

I know this is more of a statement on creationism, but the last part makes a good statement about science and why writing evolution off as mere “theory” is bull.

Also read this:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

And accept the fact that while evolution may be overturned in your lifetime, it won’t be by YOU - the armchair scientist.

EPIC win!
[/quote]

Is this the second time you have applauded an off topic post?

123

[quote]jakshafter wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.

Also listen to Lonnie.

Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.

Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable

Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.

BTW i am a scientist

Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record.

This is what psychology does. They look at current data and make predictions about the past. Psych is not science and is therefore in the liberal arts school. This is what is refered to as post hoc fallacy.

If 1 ocurrs then 2 ocurrs, therefore 1 causes 2. This is even weaker than causation via correlation.

For example, “I got up this morning and had a headache, therefore waking up causes headaches” I can come up with any number of reasonable explaniations why i have a headache but plausability of an explaniation does not mean it is true.

An example of causation by correlation is “Ice cream sales increase at an almost identical rate to the occurence of Rapes (LOL! look it up this is a real stastic)” Therefore eating icecream causes people to Rape others.

[/quote]

Actually, psychology is a science. Correlational studies are common in psychology but they are also very common in medicine. And as you say, there is a clear distinction between correlation and causation. People who do correlational studies and review them obviously bear this in mind.

124

[quote]z0k wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
jakshafter wrote:
JohnnyNinja wrote:
Jackshafter: learn the scientific definitions of the words fact and theory. You are currently using them incoorectly and applying faulty logic based on the incorrect usage.

Also listen to Lonnie.

Also Evolution does not make choices. Evolution is what we see in the rear view mirror.

Fact = Knowledge or information based on real occurrences or empirically verifiable

Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

Nope, I am not using them incorrectly and my logic is not faulty. If you think it is, will you show me where and what logic principle it breaks.

BTW i am a scientist

Well, we can do empirically verifiable tests on DNA replication error rates in vitro, and find they make powerful predictions about what is empirically found in the fossil record.

This is what psychology does. They look at current data and make predictions about the past. Psych is not science and is therefore in the liberal arts school. This is what is refered to as post hoc fallacy.

If 1 ocurrs then 2 ocurrs, therefore 1 causes 2. This is even weaker than causation via correlation.

For example, “I got up this morning and had a headache, therefore waking up causes headaches” I can come up with any number of reasonable explaniations why i have a headache but plausability of an explaniation does not mean it is true.

An example of causation by correlation is “Ice cream sales increase at an almost identical rate to the occurence of Rapes (LOL! look it up this is a real stastic)” Therefore eating icecream causes people to Rape others.

Actually, psychology is a science. Correlational studies are common in psychology but they are also very common in medicine. And as you say, there is a clear distinction between correlation and causation. People who do correlational studies and review them obviously bear this in mind.[/quote]

I guess is you want to call it that. At universities it is in the School of Liberal Arts and not in the School of Science and Math. I minored in it at college and find it interesting and important but I dont think most would put it in the hard science catagory.

Math, Biology, Engineering, Physics…Psychology?

or

Education, Law, literature… Psychology. It seems better to me here.

The branch of psychology that deals with behavior (behaviorism) is more science oriented. This is where they test drug effects and the like. Unfortunatly this branch of Psych is dying and is being replaced by the cognitive guys (think counseling).

If you are interested in that stuff Dr. Chris Newland is the behaviour psych at guy Auburn University. He has an engineering undergrad and is one of the leaders in the field I used to do research for him.

125

[quote]z0k wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Can you give me a source that cites that most of evolution is accomplished through genetic drift. I’m not implying you are wrong, I’ve just never heard that claim and dont feel like looking at the moment.

Try looking up ‘Lewontin and Hubby’ and ‘Motoo Kimura’ and ‘The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution’. I don’t know of any websites, but I’m sure a google search will yield results.

The idea is basically this:

  1. Mutation is the ultimate source of all novel genetic material
  2. Mutations can be deleterious (negative impact on fitness) in which case they are quickly lost from the population by natural selection, mutations can be beneficial and be subsequently fixed in the population quite rapidly (since natural selection selects for the beneficial allele) OR mutations can be neutral.

So, according to this theory, most of the intermediary allele frequencies (values between 1 and 0) are neutral alleles.

Again, as I said above, I’m not necessarily saying that this is the cause of most variation. I really don’t know enough to make that claim. It is definitely a significant and often overlooked aspect of evolution though.

Edit: also, keep in mind that we are talking about variation at the molecular level here.[/quote]

It sounds to me like you are arguging for natural selection… Of course the gene mutating is obviously the source of novel genetic material. However, that novel mutation is allowed to stick around because it is selected for. Natural Selection really isnt an idea that explains mutations, but rather their propagation in a population.

The gene first has to modify, and then it is selected for if it increases fitness. Its a combination of the two working together.

126

[quote]
I guess is you want to call it that. At universities it is in the School of Liberal Arts and not in the School of Science and Math. I minored in it at college and find it interesting and important but I dont think most would put it in the hard science catagory.

Math, Biology, Engineering, Physics…Psychology?

or

Education, Law, literature… Psychology. It seems better to me here.

Where I went to school, the History of Science department was under the School of Science. Does that make the History of Science a science?

127

Getting way off topic here. Lets try and stick to the thread at hand instead of which room the history classes should be in.

128

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
z0k wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Can you give me a source that cites that most of evolution is accomplished through genetic drift. I’m not implying you are wrong, I’ve just never heard that claim and dont feel like looking at the moment.

Try looking up ‘Lewontin and Hubby’ and ‘Motoo Kimura’ and ‘The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution’. I don’t know of any websites, but I’m sure a google search will yield results.

The idea is basically this:

  1. Mutation is the ultimate source of all novel genetic material
  2. Mutations can be deleterious (negative impact on fitness) in which case they are quickly lost from the population by natural selection, mutations can be beneficial and be subsequently fixed in the population quite rapidly (since natural selection selects for the beneficial allele) OR mutations can be neutral.

So, according to this theory, most of the intermediary allele frequencies (values between 1 and 0) are neutral alleles.

Again, as I said above, I’m not necessarily saying that this is the cause of most variation. I really don’t know enough to make that claim. It is definitely a significant and often overlooked aspect of evolution though.

Edit: also, keep in mind that we are talking about variation at the molecular level here.

It sounds to me like you are arguging for natural selection… Of course the gene mutating is obviously the source of novel genetic material. However, that novel mutation is allowed to stick around because it is selected for. Natural Selection really isnt an idea that explains mutations, but rather their propagation in a population.

The gene first has to modify, and then it is selected for if it increases fitness. Its a combination of the two working together.[/quote]

If the novel gene mutation is selected for, it becomes fixed in the population very quickly (i.e. eventually 100% of the individuals will have a copy of the gene).

The neutral theory isn’t supposed to replace the theory of natural selection. In fact, one of the assumptions it holds (the fixing of beneficial alleles in a population) is based on natural selection. It is merely trying to account for the high degree of variation that exists in populations of organisms.

Not EVERY trait affects fitness, as had previously been thought. In fact, the convention now among evolutionary biologists is to assume that a trait is neutral with respect to fitness unless it can be proved otherwise; only then can it be deemed an adaptation.

129

Here are a couple of links I found:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Neutral-Theory-the-Null-Hypothesis-of-Molecular-839