Is Evolution good science?

[Architectonic]

I am starting this thread to keep it separate from the other discussion Bad science masquerading as good..

Do you consider Evolution to be good science?

Actual examples of the science in practice would be interesting to discuss.

 

[Cognisant]

If there's no evolution, why all this life cycle and reproduction bullshit?

More sober people than I will defend the science.

 

[Skinart]

No. Evolution is not good science because it fails to complete the reproducible experiment step. This is not to say it isn't a very good hypothesis. But just because a hypothesis creates potential logical solutions to problems doesn't mean the hypothesis is true. The advantage of science of mere conjecture is that it (normally) forces us to put our ideas, no matter how brilliant or idiotic they seem, to the test. If that test is skipped, then it is not science.

There is of course, the argument that evolution can't be tested because it takes place over too long a period of time. I would argue that anything that fits that bill isn't science and never will be. I would also argue that without making the attempt, you have no fucking clue how long it will actually take. There are a couple such sacred cows of 'too long' that have been decimated in the last decade.

I say it's high time someone made the attempt to experimentally prove speciation to a degree that a wholly new organism was formed. Hooves on mice would be pretty damn solid proof--even better if they couldn't produce viable offspring when mated with control mice.

For the sake of clarity, and I know that many will find it unclear in spite of my clarifications and put words into my mouth and claim ideologies in my head that do not exist there:

Selection works amazing things. Natural Selection is credible in that it is the observation of natural factors (limited food, abnormally successful predation) perform the work of animal husbandry to select for viability. However, I don't see that we can credit Natural Selection with anything more profound than we know we can produce with Deliberate Selection in a laboratory setting.

I also do agree that the Natural Selection/Evolution hypothesis can be extended in such a way that it covers an awful lot of things. But I can 'uncover' a similar breadth and depth of things if I first assume Spontaneous Generation is true as well. Therefore, the ability of a hypothesis to explain a phenomena cannot be the sole arbiter of the hypothesis' credibility. That is why we have experiments, and experiments are a place that seems to be lacking.

I would also like to point out my awareness that my ignorance of such experimentation taking place is not proof that such experiments are not taking place, only that they haven't entered into the tiny realm of things I've run across.

In the interest of full disclosure, because of it's handiness, I often find myself looking at various biological phenomena from a standpoint of Evolution as a 'working hypothesis'. This is to say, I can readily see how certain things would fit into the scheme of things as if Evolution were an experimentally proven thing. For example, bedbugs reproduce by traumatic insemination: the females lack an opening so the males bash one into them. The breaking of the hymen could be seen as evolution at work to increase the likelihood of surviving sexual contact.

 

[Architectonic]

If there's no evolution, why all this life cycle and reproduction bullshit?

Because DNA is unstable?

 

[Cognisant]

Explain to me how the life cycle and reproduction fix that.

Biology is so bizzare

 

[Taniwha]

The concept of evolution is alien to me (will learn this next year when I study biology at Polytech).

I'm a creationist myself. However I do consider evolution to be a very respectable hypothesis, and there is some truth in it. Maybe not in how Darwin pictured, but evolution occurs in all sorts of things such as bacteria and viruses to human technology. We also know that natural selection is a proven fact. Its instinct in all walks of life here on planet earth.

There is no good or bad science. In my opinion, science should be used to discover the truth (no matter what that may be) through using the tools and technology we are presented with. Science is not biest, the people who use can be. I accept science that backs up evolution, I just others would do the same for science that also backs up the concept of creation.

I don't want to get into a debate about creation vs evolution.
Debating is an exchange of ignorance. I prefer to be open minded.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say on this subject.

 

[Jesse]

Before evolution people bred horses for desirable traits. Evolution is just a continuation of that on a grand scale.

 

[NoID10ts]

I accept science that backs up evolution, I just others would do the same for science that also backs up the concept of creation.

I don't want to get into a debate about creation vs evolution.
Debating is an exchange of ignorance. I prefer to be open minded.

In the interest of being open minded, what scientific evidence is there that backs up creation? Not looking for a debate, just curious as to what you're referring to.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Speciation has been observed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7).

There are experiments that can be done with evolution. Science requires manipulating an independent variable while controlling all other variables, so putting an organism into the wild and watching it evolve is a good observation, but it does not isolate a single cause-effect relationship between the selection pressure and the evolutionary change. In genetics, a single gene can be inserted, removed, or changed and the resulting phenotypic alteration can be observed. Gene splicing and recombination happens all the time. Disease/antibiotic research and cancer research wouldn't work without this. If it weren't for evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce insulin or bovine growth hormone from bacteria (1). We wouldn't be able to make type 3 secretion proteins by knocking out bacterial flagella genes (1). HOX genes can be taken from one species and put into another and have it function properly (1). Humans can even make their own DNA and have it function inside of an empty cell (1).

Natural selection is just a simple inference that changes in genes that we do in the lab demonstrably happen in the wild (1) (2) (3).

So, is evolution good science? Yes. It's been tested, observed, and demonstrated. Is natural selection good science? By definition, no. Natural selection is simply an explanation made by an almost obvious inference, but there is no real way to test natural selection, since by definition, if we are testing it, it is no longer natural, and we can't attribute a single cause to an observed phenotypical effect.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Any theory that helps people get a more accurate picture of the probable truth is good science, and the theory of evolution fits that ambiguous criterion. There have been plenty of philosophical arguments about what constitutes "good science," and we really do not have a precise universal set of criteria to nail down a definition. The elementary school definition of science involves something that is testable. OK, but that excludes any scientific field of the distant past, including Darwinian evolution, paleontology, archaeology, and astronomy. Are we going to tell archaeologists and astronomers that they are not scientists?

In my opinion, "science" is whatever "scientists" do for a living, right or wrong. I find it useless to argue over what is "science" and what isn't. It is semantics. I figure it is better to argue over the objective facts and the best explanations for them.

Any way you cut the deck, common descent and Darwinian evolution is the best explanation for the facts. Genetic mutation has been observed, natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed, genetic evolution has been observed on the small scales, "missing links" have been found in the fossil record many times over, expected leftovers of our evolutionary heritage, both physiological and genetic, have been found many times over, and all organisms living and dead fit elegantly into a taxonomic family tree of physiology and corroborated by genetics, predicted only by common descent.

You know how you belong to the genus Homo, the family Hominidae, the order Primates, the class Mammalia, the phylum Chordata, the kingdom Animalia and the domain Eukaria? Each of those classifications are made because of an unique characteristic shared by all members of the taxon--all mammals feed their young with milk, all primates have three kinds of teeth, all hominids lack tails except for tailbones, and so on. All organisms fit into that elegant family tree structure, and no explanation for the beginnings of life predicts it, except for common descent. If life were structured any other way, then common descent would be seen as impossible.

If anyone is curious, I can go very deeply into the specifics of the evidence, as I have in the past. I can start a new thread for human beings with tails, which I find especially interesting, or the fossilized "missing links" of human ancestry.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Hooves on mice would be pretty damn solid proof

... *facepalm*

Go back to biology class.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Don't facepalm. Use the point to your advantage. Hooves on mice would be much more likely to be evidence against the theory of evolution, not evidence in favor of it. That is because any branch of the macroscopic family tree does not cross and join with another branch of the family tree. If we were to find a mouse with hooves, then where would we put it in the taxonomy? Would we put it with the superorder Ungulata, alongside llamas and horses? Or would we put it in the order Rodentia, alongside the other mice? You can't put it in both. When the family tree forms a loop, then there is problem. Loops can be expected in any system of life that is not common descent. When we find a hoofed mouse, then evolutionists would have a big problem on their hands, but creationists would take a huff out of their cigars and say, "All part of God's glorious design."

 

[SpaceYeti]

How could I not facepalm? If I facepalm in RL, I type that. I did facepalm, so I wrote that. Anyhow, yeah, hooves on rodents, or any currently un hooved animal, would be evidence against evolution. I mean... sure, there's a chance of that same series of many mutations happening over again, but the odds are so unlikely that it's silly to consider.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The proposal for hoofed mice is not nearly half as stupid as what you see when you get deeply involved in these debates. The advantage of writing on the Internet is that you communicate exactly what you need to communicate in order to make an effective point, and you don't need to communicate all of your impulsive non-verbal gestures. The disadvantage of writing on the Internet is that there is a strong temptation to say absolutely anything that is on your mind.

 

[SpaceYeti]

"Crocoduck"!

 

[Skinart]

Hooves on mice would represent a clear cut case of speciation. It would prove the ability of a species to evolve into something that differs from its ancestors. At present, it is believed that rodents and ungulates descended from a common ancestor, therefore the suggestion that they could be forcibly evolved from their present toed state to one of hooves isn't that outrageous.

I realize the contemporary thought is that devolution isn't possible. That's fine. But if it is possible to evolve hooves, it is possible to evolve hooves. Why not start with something that while obviously not hooved at some significantly recent point was believed to have that potentiality?

The product of the evolution experiment doesn't have to fit in the present taxonomy. It merely has to have a strong record of change in a controlled environment resulting the emergence of a wholly new species.

Agent Intellect has brought more to the table in demonstrating evolution occurring in an experimental setting than a thousand facepalms over my suggested experimen. Your facepalms merely suggests a devotion to the same sort of Platonic thinking that limits most people unable to accept evolution from accepting evolution.

Also, thank you AI for the interesting links.

 

[Architectonic]

A nice post by AI..

I also take objection to the idea that evolutionary theory does not make testable predictions. One way of testing such hypothesis is to make predictions about past data that has not yet been analyzed.

Evolution, when combined with other discoveries such as retroviruses for example, allowed a variety of interesting predictions, some of which turned out to be correct.

I will point out some of the more interesting discoveries when I have time.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Hooves on mice would represent a clear cut case of speciation. It would prove the ability of a species to evolve into something that differs from its ancestors. At present, it is believed that rodents and ungulates descended from a common ancestor, therefore the suggestion that they could be forcibly evolved from their present toed state to one of hooves isn't that outrageous.

I realize the contemporary thought is that devolution isn't possible. That's fine. But if it is possible to evolve hooves, it is possible to evolve hooves. Why not start with something that while obviously not hooved at some significantly recent point was believed to have that potentiality?

The product of the evolution experiment doesn't have to fit in the present taxonomy. It merely has to have a strong record of change in a controlled environment resulting the emergence of a wholly new species.

Agent Intellect has brought more to the table in demonstrating evolution occurring in an experimental setting than a thousand facepalms over my suggested experimen. Your facepalms merely suggests a devotion to the same sort of Platonic thinking that limits most people unable to accept evolution from accepting evolution.

Also, thank you AI for the interesting links.

Speciation is when something is so different from what it was previously related to that they can no longer interbreed, or if they do the offspring is neuter. Also, I did say it's technically possible for mice to evolve hooves. The statistical chance, however, is incredibly slim. We're talking about a very specific alteration in every aspect of the lower leg and foot of the animal. While that area is bound to change significantly or even wholly given enough time, the odds of it changing in that specific way is absurdly slim.

 

[Jennywocky]

There are experiments that can be done with evolution. Science requires manipulating an independent variable while controlling all other variables, so putting an organism into the wild and watching it evolve is a good observation, but it does not isolate a single cause-effect relationship between the selection pressure and the evolutionary change. In genetics, a single gene can be inserted, removed, or changed and the resulting phenotypic alteration can be observed. Gene splicing and recombination happens all the time. Disease/antibiotic research and cancer research wouldn't work without this. If it weren't for evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce insulin or bovine growth hormone from bacteria (1). We wouldn't be able to make type 3 secretion proteins by knocking out bacterial flagella genes (1). HOX genes can be taken from one species and put into another and have it function properly (1). Humans can even make their own DNA and have it function inside of an empty cell (1).

Yup.

Frankly, if anyone bothers to do any research on the topic, they'll see the ways in which evolutionary theory is being successfully used in technology, social programming, etc., nowadays. This has been common knowledge for at least ten years but easily more than that. (I think the recent advent of computer/tech capability has increased the degree we can test and use these ideas.)

Just a broad overview:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3300803/The-new-theories-of-evolution.html

Evolution has such a broad scope, to expect to be able to test it on a large theoretical setting seems kind of ridiculous (mice with hooves? please)... but the concepts are testable in applied, narrower settings, and are guiding product development with a lot of invested capital nowadays. Something must be working correctly.

 

[Skinart]

... Anyhow, yeah, hooves on rodents, or any currently un hooved animal, would be evidence against evolution. I mean... sure, there's a chance of that same series of many mutations happening over again, but the odds are so unlikely that it's silly to consider.

Speciation is when something is so different from what it was previously related to that they can no longer interbreed, or if they do the offspring is neuter. Also, I did say it's technically possible for mice to evolve hooves. The statistical chance, however, is incredibly slim. We're talking about a very specific alteration in every aspect of the lower leg and foot of the animal. While that area is bound to change significantly or even wholly given enough time, the odds of it changing in that specific way is absurdly slim.

Not a very strong admission it is possible when you say doing it would be evidence against evolution. The probability of a particular change occurring increases when specifically selecting for a particular change.

Furthermore, one need not take the specific example as the only one. Any similarly definitive and dramatic instance of speciation produced in a controlled laboratory environment will prove the validity of evolution--that entirely different organisms can develop from a common ancestor. In this instance there is not quite enough rigor to satisfy (me).

A laboratory setting allows for greater control than occurs in nature and can allow for artificially enhanced selection toward a specific trait, which in turn allows for faster changes and propagation of such changes. I posit that any change that can be triggered through a controlled breeding program is possible in a natural setting, and that that is what is needed to demonstrate such changes are possible. Fossil records simply don't satisfy as there is no chain of observation, just pieces shoved into an order that seems to make sense.

Evolution has such a broad scope, to expect to be able to test it on a large theoretical setting seems kind of ridiculous (mice with hooves? please)... but the concepts are testable in applied, narrower settings, and are guiding product development with a lot of invested capital nowadays. Something must be working correctly.

One need not satisy the entirety of evolution in a single go, but by increments which are shown to be transitive--which is the basis of evolution to begin with, so why call it ridiculous? I am not saying that my suggested result is the only one which satisfies, but it would no doubt satisfy a great many of the claims in a nigh incontrovertible manner.

While one person may be unimpressed by changing a bacterium into an previously unknown variety incompatible with it's ancestors, something on the order that I have suggested is sufficiently dramatic and definite as to make resistance very difficult. It reduces one to the argument that while an experiment may prove an idea plausible it doesn't prove that it is the way it happened. When the primary opposing argument is more or less "by magic", that argument seems difficult to hold.

If one does that which is easy or simple, it does little to impress. If you are going to argue that something implausible occurs and claim your explanation as science, you shouldn't be surprised if a devotee of scientific method requests the production of something implausible.


As far as evolution in a production environment? Please. Of course it works there. But an ergonomic hammer isn't an organism fighting for it's life. An iteration of a product or a piece of computer code that is fundamentally different from it's ancestor is also fundamentally different and easier than having an animal diverge into rabbits and cheetahs.

However, the existence of evolution in production is the sort of thing that makes evolution in biology more attractive. The idea of something so unifying is incredibly seductive--we are geared toward pattern finding so large patterns like that is satisfying.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

To continue what Jennywonky is onto... I like that people still don't believe evolution. Because it gives me another leg up (since I understand & believe in evolution).

What's pretty good evidence for me is the analysis on genomes between species. A lot of our DNA matches up with our close relatives (primates, mammals, etc). Having similar DNA means that we have the same cell machinery- and not just that, but the cell machinery is built in similar ways.

An important concept for this discussion is convergent evolution. The idea is that: Different species, when they're in similar environments, will evolve similar strategies (i.e. similar functions and structures). So let's say that these 2 species evolve some similar strategy... they don't have to code their proteins the same way- infact, it's likely that they won't.

So, for humans to be functionally & structurally humans, we don't have to have the genome we have today. The genes could trade places, we could have more or fewer chromosomes, our genetic code could be different, and the genes that code our proteins could be different!

So why then, do we share so much DNA similarity from primates? Well I guess it's just really random! Or maybe when God was coding us he decided to just borrow a lot of code from primates. (Heck, I re-use my old programming code in new programs all the time.) Or maybe it's just magic.

But if you want to remove a higher power from the picture, this evolution theory isn't so bad.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Not a very strong admission it is possible when you say doing it would be evidence against evolution. The probability of a particular change occurring increases when specifically selecting for a particular change.

Furthermore, one need not take the specific example as the only one. Any similarly definitive and dramatic instance of speciation produced in a controlled laboratory environment will prove the validity of evolution--that entirely different organisms can develop from a common ancestor. In this instance there is not quite enough rigor to satisfy (me).

A laboratory setting allows for greater control than occurs in nature and can allow for artificially enhanced selection toward a specific trait, which in turn allows for faster changes and propagation of such changes. I posit that any change that can be triggered through a controlled breeding program is possible in a natural setting, and that that is what is needed to demonstrate such changes are possible. Fossil records simply don't satisfy as there is no chain of observation, just pieces shoved into an order that seems to make sense.

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

The thing about evolution is that things don't just grow a sort of piece and it helps them, though. The alterations are slight. The alterations necessary for mice to evolve hooves, firstly, would take an extraordinarily long time, an amount longer than we'd be able to see it happen in our life time. Secondly, hooves already happened. One of the things about evolution is that it doesn't tend to do changes the same way more than once. The exact same thing happening in two wholly different instances is an anomaly at best. It'd be like dolphins evolving humanoid toes. Firstly, it doesn't benefit them in a manner that it'd be selected for. Secondly, it's a second itteration of something that already happened... a near exact replication. Evolution doesn't copy previous innovations that aren't found in the line it's currently evolving on. Take wings for example. They've evolved differently at least three times... and bats don't have feathers, insects don't have a single pair, etc... Every separate thing with a similar job along different lines... are different.

 

[Architectonic]

So why then, do we share so much DNA similarity from primates? Well I guess it's just really random! Or maybe when God was coding us he decided to just borrow a lot of code from primates. (Heck, I re-use my old programming code in new programs all the time.) Or maybe it's just magic.

More importantly, why do we share so many endogenous retrovirus (and DNA virus for that matter) fragments with other species, when they have no functional purpose? Why does the degree of similarity of such fragments correlate so highly with the phylogenetic tree (which is based on gene similarity, rather than "junk")?

 

[Agent Intellect]

Furthermore, one need not take the specific example as the only one. Any similarly definitive and dramatic instance of speciation produced in a controlled laboratory environment will prove the validity of evolution--that entirely different organisms can develop from a common ancestor. In this instance there is not quite enough rigor to satisfy (me).

See:

Speciation of Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.
Morphological changes in Stickleback fish.
The lizard Podarcis sicula evolves a new organ(1) (cecal valve, maybe not as dramatic as hooves, but still impressive).
A relatively simple mutation changed Ciona intestinalis simple single chambered heart into a more complex multichambered one.

The reason evolution is a strong theory, and that hooves on mice is a bad example, is because evolution can make certain predictions. For instance, if there is a universal common ancestor, then we could predict that there would be transitional species in the fossil record. And there is (1) (2). Scientists can predict what sort of morphology these transitional organisms would have based on the comparative anatomical homology of two more distantly related organisms. Scientists can trace the morphological changes of two species back to common ancestors through the phylogenic trees constructed from the fosil record. Rodents and Ungulates don't have a very recent common ancestor (1). It would take some very precise selection pressures, and probably millions of years, for a mouse to evolve hooves. Evolution would predict that this would be highly unlikely, and that it would probably be more likely that the required selection pressures would eradicate the mice before enough morphological change could happen.

A laboratory setting allows for greater control than occurs in nature and can allow for artificially enhanced selection toward a specific trait, which in turn allows for faster changes and propagation of such changes. I posit that any change that can be triggered through a controlled breeding program is possible in a natural setting, and that that is what is needed to demonstrate such changes are possible. Fossil records simply don't satisfy as there is no chain of observation, just pieces shoved into an order that seems to make sense.

Fact: Genes can be artificially inserted, removed, and changed in an organism and cause a phenotypic alteration.
Fact: Genes mutate, change, are lost/gained in the wild (1) (2).
Inference: Therefore, phenotypic changes happen in the wild.
Fact: There has been life on earth for 3.8 billion years.
Inference: Therefore small genotypic changes have been expressed as small phenotypic changes over a long time.
Inference: Therefore, organisms have speciated via allopatric and sympatric speciation.

 

[Agent Intellect]

One need not satisy the entirety of evolution in a single go, but by increments which are shown to be transitive--which is the basis of evolution to begin with, so why call it ridiculous? I am not saying that my suggested result is the only one which satisfies, but it would no doubt satisfy a great many of the claims in a nigh incontrovertible manner.

While one person may be unimpressed by changing a bacterium into an previously unknown variety incompatible with it's ancestors, something on the order that I have suggested is sufficiently dramatic and definite as to make resistance very difficult. It reduces one to the argument that while an experiment may prove an idea plausible it doesn't prove that it is the way it happened. When the primary opposing argument is more or less "by magic", that argument seems difficult to hold.

If one does that which is easy or simple, it does little to impress. If you are going to argue that something implausible occurs and claim your explanation as science, you shouldn't be surprised if a devotee of scientific method requests the production of something implausible.

I made a post, but it got caught by the spam filter. I was going to edit this in, but I'll just make it a new post.

If you need something drastic, I suggest checking out transgenics:

Spoiler

Tobacco plant with jellyfish gene being expressed.

Spoiler

Mouse with human ear being expressed.

Spoiler

Pigs expressing fluorescent jellyfish gene.

Spoiler

YouTube - Terry Bradley: Transgenic Fish



Fish with myostatin gene knocked out.

 

[Skinart]

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

The alterations necessary for mice to evolve hooves, firstly, would take an extraordinarily long time, an amount longer than we'd be able to see it happen in our life time.

I don't see that as a valid excuse. Things that take an extraordinarily long time to occur naturally, can be forced to occur at a much faster rate. Even if it can't happen in a single lifetime, that's no reason not to make the attempt.

Secondly, hooves already happened. One of the things about evolution is that it doesn't tend to do changes the same way more than once. The exact same thing happening in two wholly different instances is an anomaly at best.

Unless it is deliberately introduced. Then it is replicable science. So what if they already happened? That just means we have strong reason to believe they are a plausible outcome of a highly selective breeding program.

Firstly, it doesn't benefit them in a manner that it'd be selected for.

Sure it does. It increases the likelihood of being bred in this laboratory experiment. Survival and genetic transmission seem like they are very beneficial.

Secondly, it's a second itteration of something that already happened... a near exact replication.

You're putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. I merely spoke of hooves. I never said an exact replication of any particular species answer to the hoof problem. I just said hooves.

Evolution doesn't copy previous innovations that aren't found in the line it's currently evolving on. Take wings for example. They've evolved differently at least three times... and bats don't have feathers, insects don't have a single pair, etc... Every separate thing with a similar job along different lines... are different.

That's fine. Doesn't effect anything from my perspective. I'm talking about the ability to evolve, not what actually occurs in the wild, but demonstrating the potentiality required for the hypothesis to be true; doing so in a controlled and replicable fashion.

Given the claims of being able to predict evolutionary outcomes, you'd think instead of people saying "shush while the adults are talking" to people who don't accept every aspect of the evolution hypothesis as a priori, they'd be discussing what sorts of conditions would encourage the changes.

People spend decades making a new breed of dog that is still a dog, breeding against an illusionary standard of perfection in domestic fowl that are still fundamentally the same thing (duck, goose, chicken) to the point of rejecting cosmetically sound specimens that lay the wrong colour of egg, and I suggest evolving a mouse into something that is clearly not a mouse would definitively nail evolution as an experimentally proven theory and suddenly people think I'm a nutter?

I'm saying that if I'm to take something seriously as a scientific theory, it must be able to put it's money where it's mouth is and be demonstrable through an experiment I could potentially verify. And that it must be done for it's entire domain.


@AI: Those are certainly interesting things, but evolution posits such changes can be achieved through breeding, so that is where it would need to be created. (Transgenic) Recombinant techniques don't demonstrate that the result could have been achieved by any means other than (transgenic) recombinant techniques.

Interestingly though, I'm pretty sure that demonstrating a plausible outcome by breeding techniques implies the potential for success using recombinant techniques. The problem with recombinant techniques is that they permit the insertion of genes beyond the apparent potentiality of the host organism's genetics.

But yes, synthetic biology is the shit. Creepy as hell considering virons look like the beginning point of sexual reproduction--and recombinant techniques are more or less just us being viruses again... But still, it's the shit.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Skinart, I don't think we have examples that would be quite as compelling as mice with hooves. There has been one ongoing experiment that focuses on E. coli, a species chosen because of the short size of each generation (6 and a half generations per day). It is the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project. It made headlines some time ago because one strain managed to metabolize citrate as a source of energy, something that natural E. coli could not do. Here is the site: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't see that as a valid excuse. Things that take an extraordinarily long time to occur naturally, can be forced to occur at a much faster rate. Even if it can't happen in a single lifetime, that's no reason not to make the attempt.

But what would we gain from the experiment? Experiments aren't done out of curiosity alone unless you're rich enough to fund it yourself (or it's inexpensive enough that "funding" is unnecessary). There must be a practical application for the experiment or it simply won't happen. Why would we want to make mice with hooves in the first place?

Unless it is deliberately introduced. Then it is replicable science. So what if they already happened? That just means we have strong reason to believe they are a plausible outcome of a highly selective breeding program.

As I already said, what's the point in attempting to replicate hooves? And how would we, anyhow? Make mice more survivable or likely to reproduce if the bottom of their feet are harder? To what end? Just for mice with hooves? It would still almost assuredly not produce hooves anyhow. They'd probably just have very calloused/leathered foot souls/pads develop.

Sure it does. It increases the likelihood of being bred in this laboratory experiment. Survival and genetic transmission seem like they are very beneficial.

The laboratory experiment we have no reason to conduct in the first place? And we still have to wait for the mice to breed. Sure, we could accelerate it, but we can't make mice reproduce every hour! We'd have to wait for their sexual maturity before each generation bred.

You're putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. I merely spoke of hooves. I never said an exact replication of any particular species answer to the hoof problem. I just said hooves.

It's not hooves unless it's hooves. You didn't ask for something that looked like a hoof, or something that simply protected the mice feet from poky ground, or something that might do the same job, you asked for a "hoof", which requires a very specific arrangement of what used to be/could have been toes.

That's fine. Doesn't effect anything from my perspective. I'm talking about the ability to evolve, not what actually occurs in the wild, but demonstrating the potentiality required for the hypothesis to be true; doing so in a controlled and replicable fashion.

It's been done with bacteria and flies, things which reproduce quickly enough that we can actually do the proposed experiments. That's why those get used instead of mice, or cats, or anything else that takes longer than a few hours to reach sexual maturity.

Given the claims of being able to predict evolutionary outcomes, you'd think instead of people saying "shush while the adults are talking" to people who don't accept every aspect of the evolution hypothesis as a priori, they'd be discussing what sorts of conditions would encourage the changes.

Nobody expects anyone to take the theory a priori, due to it not being a priori. However, there are people who don't accept it because they don't see animals changing into other animals and other events which would actually disprove the theory. Most people don't want to waste their time giving a remedial course on the subject, and only a few of those people would be qualified to do so in the first place.

People spend decades making a new breed of dog that is still a dog, breeding against an illusionary standard of perfection in domestic fowl that are still fundamentally the same thing (duck, goose, chicken) to the point of rejecting cosmetically sound specimens that lay the wrong colour of egg, and I suggest evolving a mouse into something that is clearly not a mouse would definitively nail evolution as an experimentally proven theory and suddenly people think I'm a nutter?

Therein lies the problem with your request. You cannot fundamentally change a thing into something else. That's why were' still apes, we're still cordates, we're still eukaryotes, etc. Anything you get from any particular kind of animal will always still be that kind of animal. Asking for something fundamentally different from that animal is contradictory to the manner evolution works, falsifying the theory.

I'm saying that if I'm to take something seriously as a scientific theory, it must be able to put it's money where it's mouth is and be demonstrable through an experiment I could potentially verify. And that it must be done for it's entire domain.

Get a microscope and play with bacteria or fruit flies, then, because those speciate all the time.

 

[Skinart]

Soooo.... you get three kinds of wings and I only get one kind of hoof? Seems odd considering there are at least two types of hoof arrangement already--which one do I get?

Also, I said that other things would suffice, mice with hooves is just a pet desire of mine.

Seriously, I'm the only mad misunderstood scientist on this board?

 

[Agent Intellect]

Seriously, I'm the only mad misunderstood scientist on this board?

The only thing being misunderstood is the theory of evolution. You're attempting to pass off your inability to grasp the theory as being open minded. But, you have failed to explain why evolution on a macroscopic scale can't happen - at what point does some mysterious force prevent small genetic variations from adding up into large variations? If evolution is false, which you have so far failed to demonstrate, then by what mechanism does the diversity of life come about? If you have a valid alternative hypothesis, I'd be glad to hear it (and there might even be a Nobel prize with your name on it).

I posted an example of a lizard naturally evolving a new organ in an experiment in my last post; I posted examples of transgenic animals, which is what a mouse with hooves would have to be, in my last post. I'm not sure what level of proof you're looking for.

 

[Jennywocky]

But if you want to remove a higher power from the picture, this evolution theory isn't so bad.

That's part of it.

If we weren't designed by a consciousness, it's pretty much the best theory we've got, even if it still needs some tweaking. That, along with it being applicable to product dev, shows that aspects of it work.

One need not satisy the entirety of evolution in a single go, but by increments which are shown to be transitive--which is the basis of evolution to begin with, so why call it ridiculous? I am not saying that my suggested result is the only one which satisfies, but it would no doubt satisfy a great many of the claims in a nigh incontrovertible manner.

While one person may be unimpressed by changing a bacterium into an previously unknown variety incompatible with it's ancestors, something on the order that I have suggested is sufficiently dramatic and definite as to make resistance very difficult. It reduces one to the argument that while an experiment may prove an idea plausible it doesn't prove that it is the way it happened. When the primary opposing argument is more or less "by magic", that argument seems difficult to hold.

If one does that which is easy or simple, it does little to impress. If you are going to argue that something implausible occurs and claim your explanation as science, you shouldn't be surprised if a devotee of scientific method requests the production of something implausible.

None of that really changes what I've said. I mean, could you develop some sort of experiment of the degree that you demand? I don't think you can. That's why I'm like, "please, it's pretty clear that based on our current capabilities, and the huge scope in time that evolutionary theory works on, your level of proof seems unreasonable."

Which is why I approached it from another angle: We have no "better alternative" to it other than Intelligent Design (ha), and we've finding ways to test aspects of evolutionary theory as best as we can and proving it successful. Maybe that's not an airtight case, but give it time. Twenty years ago, people weren't even imagining evolutionary theory to be verifiable on the level it is today; after another century, who knows what we'll have shown? Or maybe we'll find ourselves moving in a different direction.

If you have a better alternative, feel free to explain it and show it proven to the level of proof that aspects of evolution have been shown to be accurate. I'm not particularly attached to it, it just seems to be the most likely game in town.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Soooo.... you get three kinds of wings and I only get one kind of hoof? Seems odd considering there are at least two types of hoof arrangement already--which one do I get?

Also, I said that other things would suffice, mice with hooves is just a pet desire of mine.

Seriously, I'm the only mad misunderstood scientist on this board?

There are different kinds of bird wings and insect wings, too. Just like there are different ungulate hooves. The difference is that all ungulates originate from the same hooved ancestors.

 

[gcomeau]

No. Evolution is not good science because it fails to complete the reproducible experiment step.

Nonsense. Fortunately you included that disclaimer later in the post about you not claiming to know if this was really the case or I'd be yelling things at you right now.

There is of course, the argument that evolution can't be tested because it takes place over too long a period of time. I would argue that anything that fits that bill isn't science and never will be.

There goes plate tectonics... and stellar physics... and all of cosmology...

Or, alternatively, you are grossly misunderstanding what experimental testing requirements are. You do not need to make a mountain to experimentally test plate tectonics, you have to experimentally confirm plate movement and the resulting upthrust at plate boundaries.

You do not have to make a star to experimentally test stellar physics, you can test on slightly smaller scales.

You do not need to make a universe to experimentally test cosmological models.

And you do not need to transform (for example) an aquatic life form into an amphibious one in the lab through several thousand generations of natural selective pressures applied to a breeding population to experimentally test evolutionary theory. Producing a speciation event is entirely sufficient to prove out the mechanism. Speciation events have been verified in research *dozens* of times.

I say it's high time someone made the attempt to experimentally prove speciation to a degree that a wholly new organism was formed. Hooves on mice would be pretty damn solid proof

Of what? Hooves on mice would be ridiculous and impossible to select for without performing some sort of invasive genetic engineering to transplant the genetic coding for hooves that developped in the equine branch of the ancestral genetic "tree" into the mice genome! That simply is not how evolution operates. You can't just say you want hooves on mice then hope you get the right mutations to produce them if you apply the appropriate selective pressures.

Selection works amazing things. Natural Selection is credible in that it is the observation of natural factors (limited food, abnormally successful predation) perform the work of animal husbandry to select for viability.

That, and little things like the nested hierarchical pattern of endogenous retrovisal insertions in primates that represents the closest thing to ironclad proof of common ancestry I can conceive of... or the structure of human chromosome 2 being a crystal clear fusion of chimp chromosomees 2p and 2q... or the verified existence of the GULO pseudogene based purely on evolutionary predictions...

I also do agree that the Natural Selection/Evolution hypothesis can be extended in such a way that it covers an awful lot of things. But I can 'uncover' a similar breadth and depth of things if I first assume Spontaneous Generation is true as well.

I guarantee you that you can't.

 

[ApostateAbe]

gcomeau, welcome to the forum. Helluva first post. You come looking to defend the ToE against creationists? The Internet is already filled with such defenders. They're everywhere, and its impossible to get away from them. Not that I hope you don't stick around. Stick around, please. I just think more people should find the courage to defend good science from religion in their day-to-day lives, not just on the Internet. Something I have done is to go to churches on Sunday morning, wait outside, and have conversations with people about it. To attract attention, I held a large sign in huge black letters that says, "GOD IS FAKE." I have had the best, most frank, most memorable conversations I have ever had doing that. The sign was actually beside the point. Not that you should do that, but a lot of people feel a desire to defend science against the religion of the Dark Ages, and it needs to happen both on and off the Internet.

 

[Skinart]

... But, you have failed to explain why evolution on a macroscopic scale can't happen - at what point does some mysterious force prevent small genetic variations from adding up into large variations? If evolution is false, which you have so far failed to demonstrate, then by what mechanism does the diversity of life come about? ...

One: I've never said it was false. I've said it lacked sufficient experimental rigor.

Two: There is no need for me to present an alternative hypothesis. I don't have to know or claim to know what actually happened to say a hypothesized sequence of events doesn't convince me.

Three: I haven't moved any goalposts, but I believe you are accurate in that I haven't clearly stated where I've placed them.

I see Natural Selection as a spanning subset of Selection. Therefore if a particular outcome is to be conceivable as a result of Natural Selection, one need only demonstrate it is a subset of Selection. At present I accept only those results that have been demonstrable using Selection as proven outcomes for Natural Selection. To prove all the proposed outcomes for Natural Selection one must demonstrate their feasibility through deliberate Selection.

At present, this also means that any evolutionary hypothesis I accept as theory is going to exclude abiogenesis.

Furthermore, I see Selection taking place within several areas of Life. This is to say I differentiate between plant and animal life, and level of complexity of life. Mostly this is used to ask assuming Evolution brought the organism to it's present state, is Evolution still possible at this state?

The Evolutionary hypothesis has several stops on its path, each of which I think need to be proven, most of which are, either inductively or directly:

1. Variation.

The ability of a species to have variances within it's population and still be able to reproduce.

Proven.


2. Predictable Variation determined by parentage.

Animal Husbandry did this before Mendel, Darwin and Wallace.

Proven.

3. Speciation.

The ability of a representative descendent species to be unable to procreate with representatives of it's ancestor species.

Mostly proven. It has been observed, possibly deliberately produced. The sticky point becomes the ability for a sufficiently large population of the speciated variety to come into existence at the same time to be viable as a population. The number needed varies depending on the type of critter of course. It's much easier with plants or microscopic creatures than frogs, which are again much easier than mammals. I think the area where the proof is a bit weak are in the 'higher' lifeforms, however that link (I think it was AI or Apostate Abe posted) regarding the ring of seagulls that were compatible with their neighbors but not wholly bidirectionally is definitely compelling.

4. The ability of speciation to develop new variations not within the scope of variation for the ancestor species.

This is the one I think needs real solid, rigorous controlled experimental proof. That it is inductively plausible is not sufficient. That fossils suggest it is not sufficient. I'm waiting for the experiment that shows a created branch that produces descendents different from their control group in a manner on par with (or at least very suggestive of) the difference between cheetahs and rabbits.

Not (to my knowledge) Proven.

Though, the apparent generation of a multicellular organism from a colony originally composed of unicellular organisms is damn close. The weakness is that it was an accident and lacked sufficient controls be certain of the cause of the new organism showing up. Finding a previously unknown organism isn't proof of evolution unless you can positively identify the parent structure and observed the birthing. If those restrictions can be met by the AKC to prove lineage, then surely they can be met by a laboratory.

I also recognize the generation of new variation possibilities can be attributed to mutations that manage not to result in non-viable offspring. That's an area that I don't know how to account for, nor have I heard of experiments to deal with. But it without demonstrating that speciation can produce new types of variation, one must resort to mutation, and I don't see 'mutation' as a get out experiment free card.

 

[gcomeau]

gcomeau, welcome to the forum. Helluva first post. You come looking to defend the ToE against creationists?

It's one of my hobbies.

The Internet is already filled with such defenders. They're everywhere, and its impossible to get away from them. Not that I hope you don't stick around. Stick around, please. I just think more people should find the courage to defend good science from religion in their day-to-day lives, not just on the Internet. Something I have done is to go to churches on Sunday morning, wait outside, and have conversations with people about it.

Personally, since evangelizing really irritates me when Christians do it I'm inclined to maintain consistency in my position and not do it back, but entirely agreed about defending science outside the internet. (School board meetings in certain regions of the country would be prime candidates)

Mostly proven. It has been observed, possibly deliberately produced. The sticky point becomes the ability for a sufficiently large population of the speciated variety to come into existence at the same time to be viable as a population.

How in the world is that a "sticky point"? It's the easieest thing in the world, try *preventing* it from happening. Modern humans aside, who now have the ability and inclination to jump all over the planet at will and thus being unlikely to undergo any such event all you need is for two breeding populations of a species to become reproductively isolated from each other for any reason for a sufficiently long period of time and you *will* get a speciation event. No species genetic code is static. Anywhere. Ever. And the alterations to it are by their nature random. If you seperate two different populations so that the mutations occuring and spreading through one cannot be transmitted to the other they will diverge, and the longer they are seperated the greater the divergence will be. That's just plain fact, it is an unavoidable consequence of the manner in which DNA imperfectly replicates.

4. The ability of speciation to develop new variations not within the scope of variation for the ancestor species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

Anything else?

 

[Agent Intellect]

One: I've never said it was false. I've said it lacked sufficient experimental rigor.

I admit I made some hasty judgments. You're right, I looked back at your first response, and realized that I was being unreasonably critical of you. For that I apologize.

Two: There is no need for me to present an alternative hypothesis. I don't have to know or claim to know what actually happened to say a hypothesized sequence of events doesn't convince me.

Three: I haven't moved any goalposts, but I believe you are accurate in that I haven't clearly stated where I've placed them.

I see Natural Selection as a spanning subset of Selection. Therefore if a particular outcome is to be conceivable as a result of Natural Selection, one need only demonstrate it is a subset of Selection. At present I accept only those results that have been demonstrable using Selection as proven outcomes for Natural Selection. To prove all the proposed outcomes for Natural Selection one must demonstrate their feasibility through deliberate Selection.

At present, this also means that any evolutionary hypothesis I accept as theory is going to exclude abiogenesis.

Furthermore, I see Selection taking place within several areas of Life. This is to say I differentiate between plant and animal life, and level of complexity of life. Mostly this is used to ask assuming Evolution brought the organism to it's present state, is Evolution still possible at this state?

The Evolutionary hypothesis has several stops on its path, each of which I think need to be proven, most of which are, either inductively or directly:

1. Variation.

The ability of a species to have variances within it's population and still be able to reproduce.

Proven.


2. Predictable Variation determined by parentage.

Animal Husbandry did this before Mendel, Darwin and Wallace.

Proven.

3. Speciation.

The ability of a representative descendent species to be unable to procreate with representatives of it's ancestor species.

Mostly proven. It has been observed, possibly deliberately produced. The sticky point becomes the ability for a sufficiently large population of the speciated variety to come into existence at the same time to be viable as a population. The number needed varies depending on the type of critter of course. It's much easier with plants or microscopic creatures than frogs, which are again much easier than mammals. I think the area where the proof is a bit weak are in the 'higher' lifeforms, however that link (I think it was AI or Apostate Abe posted) regarding the ring of seagulls that were compatible with their neighbors but not wholly bidirectionally is definitely compelling.

4. The ability of speciation to develop new variations not within the scope of variation for the ancestor species.

This is the one I think needs real solid, rigorous controlled experimental proof. That it is inductively plausible is not sufficient. That fossils suggest it is not sufficient. I'm waiting for the experiment that shows a created branch that produces descendents different from their control group in a manner on par with (or at least very suggestive of) the difference between cheetahs and rabbits.

Not (to my knowledge) Proven.

Though, the apparent generation of a multicellular organism from a colony originally composed of unicellular organisms is damn close. The weakness is that it was an accident and lacked sufficient controls be certain of the cause of the new organism showing up. Finding a previously unknown organism isn't proof of evolution unless you can positively identify the parent structure and observed the birthing. If those restrictions can be met by the AKC to prove lineage, then surely they can be met by a laboratory.

I also recognize the generation of new variation possibilities can be attributed to mutations that manage not to result in non-viable offspring. That's an area that I don't know how to account for, nor have I heard of experiments to deal with. But it without demonstrating that speciation can produce new types of variation, one must resort to mutation, and I don't see 'mutation' as a get out experiment free card.

After reading what you wrote, you don't seem to think evolution itself lacks the necessary experimental rigor, but that common descent does. The phylogeny built on the fossil record is not technically a hypothesis, but an explanation for the available data. Because we A) know that genetic variation occurs in the wild, B) know that changes in genetics cause phenotypical changes, and C) we have a fossil record showing morphological differences over time and similar homology between related species, the best explanation for this data is that organisms have evolved over time in a way that follows the phylogenetic tree's we've built. The addition of DNA and molecular evidence has only lent credence to this explanation.

I think it's healthy to doubt the story behind evolution (if scientists thought they had the whole story, there wouldn't be any more to study in evolutionary biology), but I also think that empiricism can only get one so far. Just like in a court, if there is sufficient evidence to infer (from empiricism to rationalism) what actually transpired, it becomes more reasonable to accept the narrative than to reject it.

4. The ability of speciation to develop new variations not within the scope of variation for the ancestor species.

This is the one I think needs real solid, rigorous controlled experimental proof. That it is inductively plausible is not sufficient. That fossils suggest it is not sufficient. I'm waiting for the experiment that shows a created branch that produces descendents different from their control group in a manner on par with (or at least very suggestive of) the difference between cheetahs and rabbits.

Not (to my knowledge) Proven.

Morphological changes on that scale have not been experimentally verified, no. But, behavioral isolation has been experimentally verified (1). The problem is still whether premating or postmating (prezygotic or postzygotic) isolation happens first (1). Organisms have been artificially evolved in laboratories to be behaviorally isolated so they do not breed with each other (premating) but, as has been pointed out before, hybrid offspring can still be produced (postmating postzygotic) like in dogs, who have large differences in tandem repeats in their genome (1). Isolation through postmating prezygotic speciation has not been demonstrated in a lab, but this would seem to have more to do with the fuzziness separating various species than anything else.

What you seem to be looking for is not just speciation, but changes on the genus level. You have stated that saying it would take too long is not a good excuse, but this same logic could be applied to plate tectonics (or just about anything in geology), M-sigma relation (or just about anything in astronomy), climate change (or just about anything in climatology) etc.

A good explanation comes from Talkorigins.org:

Spoiler

In 1983, Phillip Gingerich published a famous study analyzing 512 different observed rates of evolution (Gingerich 1983). The study centered on rates observed from three classes of data: (1) lab experiments, (2) historical colonization events, and (3) the fossil record. A useful measure of evolutionary rate is the darwin, which is defined as a change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years (where e is the base of natural log). The average rate observed in the fossil record was 0.6 darwins; the fastest rate was 32 darwins. The latter is the most important number for comparison; rates of evolution observed in modern populations should be equal to or greater than this rate.

The average rate of evolution observed in historical colonization events in the wild was 370 darwins—over 10 times the required minimum rate. In fact, the fastest rate found in colonization events was 80,000 darwins, or 2500 times the required rate. Observed rates of evolution in lab experiments are even more impressive, averaging 60,000 darwins and as high as 200,000 darwins (or over 6000 times the required rate).

A more recent paper evaluating the evolutionary rate in guppies in the wild found rates ranging from 4000 to 45,000 darwins (Reznick 1997). Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years (Gingerich 1983).

One of the most extreme examples of rapid evolution was when the hominid cerebellum doubled in size within ~100,000 years during the Pleistocene (Rightmire 1985). This "unique and staggering" acceleration in evolutionary rate was only 7 darwins (Williams 1992, p. 132). This rate converts to a minuscule 0.02% increase per generation, at most. For comparison, the fastest rate observed in the fossil record in the Gingerich study was 37 darwins over one thousand years, and this corresponds to, at most, a 0.06% change per generation.

Once again, I'm not advocating for the wholesale acceptance of common descent, but I will point out that it's the best explanation of available evidence. The explanation is able to make predictions about structure and dating of fossils uncovered (the old joke about no rabbits in the Cambrian period), about the relatedness of organisms on a genetic level (confirmed by genome mapping), about the comparative anatomical and molecular homology of living organisms (the latter being very important for medicine) and extinct organisms. While change on the genus level will probably never be demonstrated in our lifetime (at least not with current technology) I think there is sufficient evidence to make a good case for common descent.

I'm curious as to what sorts of experimental demonstrations can be produced with synthetic life.

 

[gcomeau]

After reading what you wrote, you don't seem to think evolution itself lacks the necessary experimental rigor, but that common descent does. The phylogeny built on the fossil record is not technically a hypothesis, but an explanation for the available data. Because we A) know that genetic variation occurs in the wild, B) know that changes in genetics cause phenotypical changes, and C) we have a fossil record showing morphological differences over time and similar homology between related species, the best explanation for this data is that organisms have evolved over time in a way that follows the phylogenetic tree's we've built.

If I might add a note to that...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/2/170.pdf

We've also experimentally verified with significant rigor that the mathematical models used to perform phylogenetic analysis produce accurate results. The short verion of that paper is that they bred in the lab, from a single source population, 16 seperate genetically distinct populations of Trypanosoma cruzi... each with their own unique genetic mutations and anomolies that had cropped up aloing the way over the generations.

When phylogenetic analysis was performed on the 16 terminal populations it produced the exact correct ancestral tree of every single one of them right back to the source. Not only was every single branching correctly identified but the number of distinct mutations of the genome that occured between every single branching throughout the process was also correctly identified to within the margin of error of the calculation with the exception of ONE branch, which missed by one mutation.

The number of possible phylogenetic trees that can be constructed from 16 populations is (2N-3)!/((2^(N-2)) (N-2)!) = (29!)/((2^14)(14!)) = 6.19028x10^15

It is not luck or coincidence that the math identifies the proper ancestral sequence out of all those possibilities. And when we apply those same routines to the genomes of various species of life on earth they show with crystal clarity that they also share common ancestry.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Two: There is no need for me to present an alternative hypothesis. I don't have to know or claim to know what actually happened to say a hypothesized sequence of events doesn't convince me.

What you're doing is called an "Argument from Incredulity".
YouTube - Evidence for Evolution, Part III

 

[Skinart]

gcomeau, welcome to the forum. Helluva first post. You come looking to defend the ToE against creationists?

As a pre-emptive strike against any further assumptions being made, I would like to assert that I am not a creationist of any stripe. Nor am I a theist, deist or (god forbid (sic)) a christian.

I only mention it now because yours was the first post to broach religiosity and it implied that gcomeau was "taking on a creationist". I consider that borderline libel.

Personally, I'd been quite pleased at how well people had behaved themselves in not openly assigning such thinking to me. It makes things so much more tedious when in addition to asserting what I did not say, I have to assert what I don't believe.

How in the world is that a "sticky point"?

It is a sticky point if a mutation occurs which makes the offspring non-viable with the majority of it's peers, and there aren't enough viable peers born within a cohort to have a healthy sustainable new species. It seems to me that the smaller the litter the size the lower the probability of a sustainable speciation event.

Says nothing about how hard they'll try though...

No species genetic code is static. Anywhere. Ever.

What about bananas? They are an interesting case in that they don't have any sexually viable cultivars (Discounting of course the parent cultivars they are hybridized from), and are only reproduced by cutting, producing genetic clones. At least, thats the common knowledge. It's a problem because they are highly susceptible to blight. They don't develop resistant strains to anything. As I recall Navel Oranges are in a similar boat.

Of course, any apparent stasis in a species' genetic code is "Black Swan" bait.

Thanks for the links, I'll sort through them over the next few (days/weeks)

@AI: Thanks. That was genuinely helpful, and I think you hit the nail on the head.

What you're doing is called an "Argument from Incredulity".

Close, but no cigar. You see, I did envision something that would convince me--an entire class of experimental evidence that would convince me. It would have covered every point I have concerns about, and while I still might not fully understand every detail of why it occurred, I could definitely observe some solid empirical evidence that would convince me the hypothesis had been demonstrated on every element in it's domain.

Furthermore, my argument was about whether or not something was proven, not whether on not something was true.

To clarify this distinction, consider a textbook Geometry problem. You are given a figure, and a set of known facts about the figure. Then you are tasked with proving another fact, using the information presented.

To make an Argument from Incredulity, one would have to say, because I cannot conceive of how these facts lead to the last one, the last one is not true. That isn't what I have done at all. I have asserted a belief the intermediate steps of the proof haven't been filled in completely. I'm not saying anything about the validity of the conclusion at all.


Instead, I laid out a path (albeit belatedly) of what I perceived the steps to proof to be. And bit by bit they have been chipped at with new information.

Next time try Slothful Induction.

 

[SpaceYeti]

With a slothful induction, the person is actually aware of the information with which they might make the conclusion with. However, it seemed to me that you were ignorant of much of the evidence for evolution. So, instead of trusting every reputable expert in the field of biology and it's sub-fields (I'm not one, yet I've found enough to be convinced by it anyhow), you said there wasn't enough evidence to convince you, which is an argument from incredulity. You even went so far as to suggest something which would be considered an anomaly at best would be proof, when in fact it would produce far more holes in the theory than it could ever shut. You came very close to asking for a "crocoduck".

But appearances can be deceiving.

 

[ApostateAbe]

As a pre-emptive strike against any further assumptions being made, I would like to assert that I am not a creationist of any stripe. Nor am I a theist, deist or (god forbid (sic)) a christian.

I only mention it now because yours was the first post to broach religiosity and it implied that gcomeau was "taking on a creationist". I consider that borderline libel.

Personally, I'd been quite pleased at how well people had behaved themselves in not openly assigning such thinking to me. It makes things so much more tedious when in addition to asserting what I did not say, I have to assert what I don't believe.

I imagine you find yourself in that awkward position very frequently when the topic comes up. I actually noticed how you never hinted at the topic of religion or creationism, and you stuck to the theory of evolution and nothing else. I broached the topic only because I could think of no other reason that gcomeau went through the trouble of registering for the forum and making that his post #1. There are a surreal number of people on the Internet who actively seek out debates on this subject, and gcomeau comes off as a veteran. I honestly did not mean to imply anything about you.

I have developed a philosophy from debating the subjects of religion and science, on two sides, and I found a methodology for deciding beliefs of any sort in any field. I have taken a position against Karl Popper's testability proposition. Instead, I propose the methodology that is known in New Testament scholarship as "Argument to the Best Explanation." When more than one theory is on the table to explain a set of facts, then we should accept the theory that best explains the evidence according to a list of five criteria, summarized as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, least ad hoc and non-contradiction. This methodology is normally excluded to New Testament studies, but I propose that it can be adopted for all academic fields as the explicit philosophy (it is already the implicit philosophy), to replace the philosophies of science that scientists may say they accept but they simply don't in practice, including methodological naturalism and Popper's criteria. When you put on the table all explanations for life, then all options may fail by using criteria contained in high school textbooks, but Darwin's theory of evolution easily comes out on top by the universal criteria actually used in practice, in my opinion.

 

[gcomeau]

It is a sticky point if a mutation occurs which makes the offspring non-viable with the majority of it's peers,

Then it's reproductively disadvantaged and unlikely to pass on that mutation.

I fail to see the problem here. Unless you are under the impression speciation events are supposed to be "poof" there was a mutation and now we have a new species? That is most certainly not the case. I believe I already explained in a little detail how speciation would most commonly occur. The *entire* reprocuctively isolated population would all be perfectly capable of interbreeding over successive generations, their gene pool would be successively accumulaitng differences relative the the population they were isolated from however until individuals of one group were no longer capable of interbreeding with the *other* group even were they re-combined into a single group.

Once that point is reached the divergence of the two groups will continue inevitably and irreversibly.

What about bananas? They are an interesting case in that they don't have any sexually viable cultivars (Discounting of course the parent cultivars they are hybridized from), and are only reproduced by cutting, producing genetic clones.

Which survive only because the are artificially cultivated by us. We go away and they're extinct. They're can hardly be used as a case study in evolutionary processes so I'm having trouble seeing what the point of bringing them up is. To slightly modify your statement to make it more generalized you could just as well have said "well what if we artificially made a species that was immune to/isolated from evolutionary processes"?

Well... then it would be a completely separate case that had nothing to do with evolutionary theory. So?

That is of course for the version of banana we humans have so extensively modified for agricultural purposes, as opposed to wild bananas that act just like every other living thing as far as evolution is concerned.

 

[Skinart]

The point of bananas is that you asserted: never ever ever. Bananas represent a counter-example, I'm trained in Applied Mathematics, it amused me. QED.

SpaceYeti: I would never ask for a crocoduck. I know entirely too much about domestic poultry and the breeding thereof. By this I mean I would like to know much much less. I really wish I didn't know the gene for ducks laying blue eggs is on the drake side. I could also do without the knowledge of how to identify the gender of most ducks without venting or observing a mounting. (Though I was amused to find that many people can look at a flock of Ruans and ask which are the males--they are classically dimorphic).

In short, if I were to ask for anything of that line it would be the saber-toothed moose lion. Then I would lobby to make it highly neoten0ous. Cha-ching.


On a side note, I don't believe in Proof by Authority. Lots of people believe stupid things, and lots of people believe the same stupid things. Repeating what others have reported isn't learning, it's memorization. But that's a whole different debate for a different thread and a different year.

 

[gcomeau]

The point of bananas is that you asserted: never ever ever. Bananas represent a counter-example, I'm trained in Applied Mathematics, it amused me. QED.

An *artificially created* counterexample that has nothing to do with how evolutionary mechanisms operate in nature... but fine, if it amused you that's what's important.

Was there anything else?

 

[RobdoR]

Is Evolution good science?

It all depends on what you mean by "evolution". If you mean studying how organisms change from generation to generation then, yes, it is good science. It's very useful.

But if by evolution you mean the philosophical theory of the origins of life, then no. It is not science at all, but rather pre-historical speculation that has very little value for solving scientific problems. It's no more useful than the theory of creation when it comes to practical matters. Both say more about world view than they do about science.

I know for many people these two definitions are seamless, so I'll give an example. I often hear it said that you must have have an understanding of evolution to understand biology. And by this they mean that you must accept the philosophy so you can have a framework for your ideas. Not true. What you need is the ability to understand facts about genetics. A creationist can make discoveries about how development is driven by DNA just as well as an evolutionist. They will come to completely different conclusions about why it is so, but that is irrelevant. All that matters for science is that we understand how it works now, and then figure out useful things we can do with that knowledge.

 

[gcomeau]

Is Evolution good science?

It all depends on what you mean by "evolution". If you mean studying how organisms change from generation to generation then, yes, it is good science. It's very useful.

But if by evolution you mean the philosophical theory of the origins of life, then no. It is not science at all, but rather pre-historical speculation that has very little value for solving scientific problems. It's no more useful than the theory of creation when it comes to practical matters. Both say more about world view than they do about science.

I know for many people these two definitions are seamless, so I'll give an example. I often hear it said that you must have have an understanding of evolution to understand biology. And by this they mean that you must accept the philosophy so you can have a framework for your ideas. Not true. What you need is the ability to understand facts about genetics. A creationist can make discoveries about how development is driven by DNA just as well as an evolutionist. They will come to completely different conclusions about why it is so, but that is irrelevant. All that matters for science is that we understand how it works now, and then figure out useful things we can do with that knowledge.

Oh really?

Tell me how someone working from creationist assumptions would have known to look for and thus discover the existence of the GULO pseudogene in primates. Just for example.

 

[RobdoR]

You bring up a good point gcomeau. A creationists may not have bothered looking for similar pseudogeges between humans and primates. This is a case where a philosophy of origins provided motivation for exploring a certain area. Now, since the whole area of pseudogenes is far from solved, wouldn't it make sense to approach it from different angles? An evolutionist may, upon finding a discovery like this, say, "Ah look. More evidence for evolution." Case closed. No further research needed. On the other hand, a creationists motivated by a different philosophy may investigate the matter further to see if there is a hidden function that gene does which is not obvious. It doesn't have to be a creationists. In fact, I think most the the cutting edge research on the functions of genes is done by a group of people who have adopted the title Evo Devo or Evolutionary Development.

My point is that good science can be done by people of all philosophical and religious beliefs. I don't see why the mainstream science culture has such a big problem with creationists. At worst, you will get some people following dead end leads, but more likely you will get people discovering facts may have been overlooked by someone with an evolutionary philosophy.

 

[gcomeau]

You bring up a good point gcomeau. A creationists may not have bothered looking for similar pseudogeges between humans and primates. This is a case where a philosophy of origins provided motivation for exploring a certain area. Now, since the whole area of pseudogenes is far from solved, wouldn't it make sense to approach it from different angles? An evolutionist may, upon finding a discovery like this, say, "Ah look. More evidence for evolution." Case closed. No further research needed. On the other hand, a creationists motivated by a different philosophy may investigate the matter further to see if there is a hidden function that gene does which is not obvious. It doesn't have to be a creationists. In fact, I think most the the cutting edge research on the functions of genes is done by a group of people who have adopted the title Evo Devo or Evolutionary Development.

First of all, if there is an evolutionary biologist on the face of the earth who would use the phrase "no further research needed" I want to meet them.

That said, you're rather missing the point., It's not "I'm motivated to look for things" or "I'm curious about stuff". It's that evolutionary theory specifically, based on it's premises, told us exactly what to look for and where to look for it if it's hypotheses were correct and we found it

It made a *testable prediction*, which is one of the measurement of whether a theory has scientific value. Creationism makes none. "God caused this... somehow... using magic!" does not provide direction for research.

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster