Is Evolution good science?

[erlyn]

From the experiments that I have looked at and from what I have read evolution is "bad" science.
Take DNA. DNA is in everything living. Evolutionists say that because it is in all things living and that it is only small variations that make up the differences within a species or their chromosome number is different. Because we are all similar that must mean we descended from a common ancestor.

The same statement can be seen in a different light. Because we are all similar that means that there must have been intelligent design.

The problem with evolution is that it is assumed as true and then the results of an experiment are presented in that light. True science would be impartial and would allow the evidence to speak for itself and not impose theories on it.

You may say that that is science. You come up with a theory and then do experiments that show whether or not that theory is right or wrong. If that is the case then one does not take a theory and try to fit the data to the theory but the theory to the data. Evolution is usually assumed and the data is fit to the theory. If we allowed the data to actually speak for itself what would it say?

would it say that evolution is true? If that is where the evidence points then that is where we go.
If the evidence points to an intelligent designer then that is where we go.

Personally I think that there are too many unanswered questions in the evolutionary theory, and when someone like Richard Dawkins starts saying things about aliens seeding the earth to begin the evolutionary process I begin to wonder.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can't claim I'm capable of giving you a remedial course on evolution, because I'm simply not trained to do so. However, I would suggest you learn a few things about evolution before dismissing it as you have. There are problems with what you've said, but I'll only point out a few;

1) Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, which is necessary in order for something to be a theory.

2) You start out with "hypotheses", which, after testing and not getting falsified, may spawn a theory, which is the greatest degree of understanding in science, and explains facts.

3) It's not merely that DNA is similar that is evidence of evolution, it's the manner in which they're similar.

4) Richard Dawkins has never seriously advocated panspermia.

How about this; Actually discover a problem with the theory. Falsify the theory. Then, you'll be world famous and you'd probably win awards and you could get donations for your own scientific experiments easily. Do it, I dare you.

 

[Jennywocky]

1) Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, which is necessary in order for something to be a theory.

Which is a huge deal.

I mean, speaking tangentially now, we even now have the US legal system stating these things about I.D., when the fundies have foolishly tried to drag things into court, and even noting that I.D. is just the newest version of creationism to play in court rather than a scientific hypothesis its own right. It's pretty bad when even professional-level folks who are non-scientists can recognize the difference between something that is falsifiable vs not.

(The Dover judge was even a religious man and a Republican -- and in Central PA, the two are fairly synonymous -- and yet he had no choice but to severely criticize I.D. in his court summary as not fitting the definition of science.)

I'll point to some of the comments by the judge about Michael Behe's testimony (Behe is one of the major proponents of I.D. and certainly the man who popularized it):

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

• "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]
• "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]
• "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]
• "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]
• "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]
• "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]
• "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]
• "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."[56]

And as I said, this is the main proponent of ID Theory... and this was the best case he could make for his views... in a court of law.

I'm only pointing it out because I'm not sure what other options are on the table that are falsifiable, except some variation of evolutionary theory.

 

[erlyn]

I am just saying that much of the "evidence" for evolution is not evidence. The research can go either way and is many times interpreted according to someone's world view. From the papers and journal articles that I have read I find that many scientists are biased one way or the other and not truly seeking truth as they say they are.

 

[NoID10ts]

I am just saying that much of the "evidence" for evolution is not evidence. The research can go either way and is many times interpreted according to someone's world view. From the papers and journal articles that I have read I find that many scientists are biased one way or the other and not truly seeking truth as they say they are.

Can you cite some specific examples or point me in the direction of these articles?

 

[SpaceYeti]

I am just saying that much of the "evidence" for evolution is not evidence. The research can go either way and is many times interpreted according to someone's world view. From the papers and journal articles that I have read I find that many scientists are biased one way or the other and not truly seeking truth as they say they are.

I'm outright calling horseshit on your claim. If there's so much evidence which is actually not, and you're aware of it, you could cite at least one example. Hell, give us your best example.

 

[Cogwulf]

Because we are all similar that must mean we descended from a common ancestor.

Congratulations, you understand the theory of evolution...

The same statement can be seen in a different light. Because we are all similar that means that there must have been intelligent design.

...oh, wait

True science would be impartial and would allow the evidence to speak for itself and not impose theories on it.

You don't understand what a theory is. Theory is what pieces evidence toghether. Without a theory, evidence has no meaning, it is just a bunch of incoherrant facts. Evidence cannot speak for itself so we must decide what it is trying to say.

Science exists because we do not know everything. There are things we cannot know until we know other things that we do not yet know. We are a blind man on a staircase, the only way we can move forward is to guess where the next step is and then take a step to see if we were right.
If we don't guess we can never move forward.

You may say that that is science. You come up with a theory and then do experiments that show whether or not that theory is right or wrong. If that is the case then one does not take a theory and try to fit the data to the theory but the theory to the data. Evolution is usually assumed and the data is fit to the theory. If we allowed the data to actually speak for itself what would it say?

Who is fiddling the data?
We have never needed to fit the data to the theory because it already fits, we have never seen anything contradictory to the theory. All we ever see in nature is the same patterns repeating over and over and over again. We have probed every corner of the earth, looked under rocks, on leaves, into microscopes, deep in caves, the middle of desserts, the depths of the oceans, we've even looked inside the very rocks the earth is made from, and no one has ever found a single insignificant little ant that doesn't fit the theory.



Most importantly of all, you cannot cite lack of evidence, or quality of evidence as a counter-argument to a theory. The onus is to find the missing evidence.

If the evidence points to an intelligent designer then that is where we go.

Sorry... what evidence was that again? You haven't mentioned any.

Personally I think that there are too many unanswered questions in the evolutionary theory

There are certainly details missing, but I assume the questions you want answered are ones that the theory doesn't attempt to answer.

and when someone like Richard Dawkins starts saying things about aliens seeding the earth to begin the evolutionary process I begin to wonder.

Actually I agree with you there, Dawkins is more of a cultist than a scientist.




On a slight tangent, do you believe it is plausible that an intelligent designer intended for evolution to happen?
I find it ludicrous to think that a designer would create life only for it to be a static and never changing thing. Why not create an earth that is dynamic and ever changing and improving

 

[Da Blob]

Ho hum, I am believing more and more than communication between humans is very rare - if not impossible.

When people use the single word, evolution, they could be talking about four different concepts

evolution as a change

evolution as the product of the science of applied genetics

evolution as an unverifiable 'scientific' theory, a speculation/educated guess explaining the origins of current species

and

Evolution, which is a religion, based upon faith in unverifiable Probability Theories, that explains the origins of the Universe, the origins of life and whose worshippers are primarily nonscientists, who use the adjectives 'scientific' and 'logical' quite often - to refute existing religions, under a veil of false objectivity...

 

[Cogwulf]

Evolution, which is a religion, based upon faith in unverifiable Probability Theories, that explains the origins of the Universe, the origins of life and whose worshippers are primarily nonscientists, who use the adjectives 'scientific' and 'logical' quite often - to refute existing religions, under a veil of false objectivity...

All hail Pope Dawkins the first.



Although this also gives me a chance to rant about something else.
I always hate to see people referring to evolution during talks about the origin of life, whether they claim to "believe" in evolution or not.
The jurisdiction of the theory evolution begins immediately after life first appears.
The theory simply does not apply at all to questions of how life began.

 

[Anthile]

 

[Fukyo]

Spoiler

 

[Agent Intellect]

Universal common descent is not the same as evolution. It's a direct inference of evolution, supported by the fossil record and molecular/genetic homology which consistently confirm the phylogenetic trees constructed from the fossil record (1) (2) (3), but one does not require universal common descent in order to accept evolution (a thoroughly tested and continuously confirmed observable phenomena).

That being said, there is probably more evidence for universal common descent than there is for many crimes that get convicted in court. People who claim there is no evidence, or demand that scientists present it (as if they have kept it under wraps) really only demonstrate that they have taken little to no effort to find it on their own. Just to name a few places to start:

Why Evolution Is True.
Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters.
Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA.
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into The 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body.
You can even go right the the source: Origin of Species.

If you're not into buying books, some good websites are:

Talkorigins (recommended).
Genome News Network.
Understanding Evolution.
And even the Wiki does a good job.

On a side note, as annoying as Dawkin's is as an atheist apologist, his books about biology are actually very interesting and well written.

 

[Reluctantly]

Everyone has pretty much covered everything and more than I would have been aware, but I do want to add one thing that hasn't been mentioned, even if it has not been mentioned because it is implied that everyone understands this particular focus point of my cognition.

The thing about evolution is that we end up with having to reconcile the fact that we are essentially looking at the behavior of organisms over a period of time; this translates into interpreting a dynamic experience of many organisms and synthesizing their dynamic behaviors to a set of static rules or results that only reason how a set of organisms favored in their precise confinement of environment through time. In other words, what could be viewed as a genetic failure could under future consideration inevitably change the environment to become a genetic brilliance or even an important catalyst for creating a stew for other genetic variations that would never come to dominate their environments without such a stimulus.

Thus some problems with evolution are figuring out which genes should be due credit for what they create without over-simplifying things and making a too general estimation that ignores rather important aspects, leading to a poor understanding that can't be reproduced, since after all if you can't reproduce a static conclusion, how can it be taken for granted as true?

So adding in everything else that has been discussed at this point, I would say it is a science, but that it has its limits for understanding how beings will evolve in different circumstances over a specific period of time as opposed to other sciences that have a very limited amount of variables and are rather understood very well to very predictable application (such as various engineering fields and biological/medical procedures and studies).

 

[TylerRDA]

Evolution seems to be the most plausible explanation for our origins we have currently. I would point out that all the conclusions we have reached concerning evolution has been done through logical induction and affirming the hypothesis (if I remember correctly), which does not expressly prove it true.

And to address Anthile's little picture, congrats on becoming the same kind of bigot you claim to despise.

 

[Jackooboy]

Evolution is interesting. There seems to be a fossil record supporting it and you can obviously breed animals to exemplify certain characteristics... Natural selection occurs if you accept certain animals survive and others don't... we seem to be in a constant state of flux. Anyhow, I think it's important to acknowledge evolution and evolutionary principles... So yes, I'm in the evolution camp I guess you could say...

Our science is pretty funny in that they declare genetic mutations to be "random"... this "randomness" to me indicates the limit of human understanding/3D space-time in its current phase... I don't believe in random...

 

[erlyn]

I'm outright calling horseshit on your claim. If there's so much evidence which is actually not, and you're aware of it, you could cite at least one example. Hell, give us your best example.

Fair enough.

Example: http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/229

Here is an abstract from a paper claiming that because the same codon can code for different proteins in different phyla or that different phyla use a different stop condon it is evidence for evolution. I think that it is wrong to assume that this shows evolution because it does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer. I find this in all science whether it be on one side or the other.

I think that as scientists we should ask ourselves does this fit the theory of evolution or does it allow for other theories.

 

[erlyn]

Who is fiddling the data?

I never meant to say that people are fiddling with data only that they draw their conclusions based on the theory of evolution, which is fine as long as they are opened minded enough to admit that much of the data is inconclusive and can go either way.

There are certainly details missing, but I assume the questions you want answered are ones that the theory doesn't attempt to answer.

I think my questions stem from studying evolution. Such as where is the evidence in the fossil record that show the missing ancestors? To rephrase that, why is everything so complex when we have not found simple organisms that chronologically go back?
Why are the majority of mutations bad?

On a slight tangent, do you believe it is plausible that an intelligent designer intended for evolution to happen?
I find it ludicrous to think that a designer would create life only for it to be a static and never changing thing. Why not create an earth that is dynamic and ever changing and improving

I don't believe that a designer would create life and leave it to evolve ( in the sense of descending from a common ancestor) . I do believe that there is evolution on a small scale; for example animals expressing different genes to adapt to their environment. The only thing is that their genes already code for those genes and are the recessive gene.

 

[Cogwulf]

Fair enough.

Example: http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/229

Here is an abstract from a paper claiming that because the same codon can code for different proteins in different phyla or that different phyla use a different stop condon it is evidence for evolution. I think that it is wrong to assume that this shows evolution because it does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer. I find this in all science whether it be on one side or the other.

I think that as scientists we should ask ourselves does this fit the theory of evolution or does it allow for other theories.

I'm having trouble seeing the full article, but my inference from the abstract is that evolution is shown by the differentiation into different methods for coding, rather than by the existence of different methods

 

[Cogwulf]

I think my questions stem from studying evolution. Such as where is the evidence in the fossil record that show the missing ancestors? To rephrase that, why is everything so complex when we have not found simple organisms that chronologically go back?
Why are the majority of mutations bad?

Every new fossil we find is a missing ancestor. In order to have any hope at all at completing our picture of our ancestors we would have to find the remains of every creature that ever existed, which is a difficult task when only a fraction of creatures become fossilised and even fewer remain preserved for long enough for us to find.
The fossil record is a series of dots that we join up to make a picture, every new fossil gives us more dots.

The platypus is a living fossil, it is half reptile and half mammal. Some people say such a strange creature could never have evolved, some people say such a strange creature could never have been designed.
But the platypus is the most important missing link of all, and by chance has remained in a niche that has been completely undisturbed for an incredibly long period of time.
The most important period in all of evolution is the differentiation of mammals from reptiles. By chance the platypus exists as evidence of mammals and reptiles sharing a common ancestor.

The majority of mutations are bad because the majority of them cause cancer or birth defects.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Fair enough.

Example: http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/229

Here is an abstract from a paper claiming that because the same codon can code for different proteins in different phyla or that different phyla use a different stop condon it is evidence for evolution. I think that it is wrong to assume that this shows evolution because it does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer. I find this in all science whether it be on one side or the other.

I think that as scientists we should ask ourselves does this fit the theory of evolution or does it allow for other theories.

I don't see the claim that any of that is evidence of evolution anywhere in the abstract. The abstract already presumes evolution because it's the only context in which the study makes any sense. An "Intelligent Designer" would have no need to switch things around like they found. Genetics does not appear to be intelligently designed, so biologists don't assume there's an intelligent designer behind the process.

Science rules out an intelligent designer because nature doesn't appear to be designed intelligently, and even if it did there's no information about the designer itself such that it could be tested. Intelligent design is unfalsifiable, and therefore does not qualify as science. Law of parsimony, etc.

Alchemy is no longer a legitimate science, nor is astrology. In the same manner, Intelligent design is not science. I mean... why would you expect a scientist to include non-science in their science? That'd be silly.

I have a question; Is this really your best example? Your example isn't even among the evidence for evolution as you claimed it was. It's merely a few facts that evolution explain. The only way this is evidence of evolution is in how well evolution explains what happened.

 

[Jennywocky]

And to address Anthile's little picture, congrats on becoming the same kind of bigot you claim to despise.

Ouch.

Honestly, though, after spending 30+ years within religious institutions... I'm not sure what you're quibbling about in terms of process flow.

That's typically how it did work.

Sometimes people claim to challenge their own ideas and can have rational discussion; but in the end, the basic ideas of the faith really aren't up for challenge. If you look at the core, it's basically a matter of, "I believe this is true because <of a book or person I have decided is an authority on the matter>," and that is the end of it. I've seen it and heard it, in person, over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, there's no way to "test" a religious theory.
You either believe a faith value to be true or you do not.

 

[EditorOne]

If there is an intelligent designer, he's probably scratching his head at what a mess he/she (or we) made. Let's hope he/she has a sense of humor.

"I think that it is wrong to assume that this shows evolution because it does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer." Don't remember who said that, but the logic is missing. Evolution and an intelligent designer are certainly not mutually exclusive concepts. An intelligent design would, as someone pointed out, include a mechanism for change. I don't know, let's call it --- evolution.

Meanwhile, I find it just as plausible as a God, if not more plausible than a God, to believe that highly advanced aliens will return in December 2012 to see how their genetic experiments turned out. Laugh their heads off, they will.

 

[Da Blob]

Once again! There is no science that can be conducted in the Past. Crap there is no way to even agree on what was the Past much less conduct experiments in it.

The science of genetics is a valid science. We can conduct experiments with genes.

However, Those that herald Evolution are simply taking a religious stance - not a stance to promote science - There is no possible way to observe the chain of causality that has resulted in current circumstances.

Those who promote evolution without intelligent design, are doing so on faith - not science. This may be that they prefer a universe without an Intelligent Designer. Oddly enough, There really is not any evidence whatsoever, that the structures credited with the creation of species, actually did so - it is just one of many possibilities.

Again, this is a debate between differing faiths - that has little or nothing to do with legitimate science of genetics... It seems logical to extrapolate the causality of genes, back into time as being the cause of evolution of species. However, and again this involves faith in the philosophy of logic, more than it does the scientific method...

 

[Nocturne]

I believe in creation over evolution. I believe that organisms can adapt, but not evolve.

 

[NoID10ts]

I believe the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I believe in creation over evolution. I believe that organisms can adapt, but not evolve.

I would like to know if you're joking before I go on some huge rant.

 

[Jesse]

If scientists can create singing mice don't you think god would stop something like that as it messes with his creation.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why would God care that part of his creation interacted with another part of his creation? Didn't he create it to do exactly that? If not, did he make a mistake, or did he just toss shit in the bowl to see what happened?

 

[Agent Intellect]

All that could be surmised from examining the complexity of life is that it could have been designed by an intelligent designer, but there is no evidence or reason to come to the conclusion that there is a being that created matter and energy. Since the laws of physics and chemistry are all that is needed for life, and these laws can be attributed to the nature of matter/energy itself, there is no need to assume there is an intelligent designer.

 

[BigApplePi]

there is no need to assume there is an intelligent designer.

What if we call what's happening "Intelligent Design"? One may say what's happening would have happened by chance anyway, so where's the intelligence in that?

Ever play the football pool? Have you heard of casinos? Do you play the ponies? The results of all those are cleverly designed chance activities.

 

[Da Blob]

All that could be surmised from examining the complexity of life is that it could have been designed by an intelligent designer, but there is no evidence or reason to come to the conclusion that there is a being that created matter and energy. Since the laws of physics and chemistry are all that is needed for life, and these laws can be attributed to the nature of matter/energy itself, there is no need to assume there is an intelligent designer.

Attribution is an underused concept. Of course, our attributions of causality are subjective - even the scientific method establishes correlations and not causality.

This idea that all of the laws of physics and chemistry (organic, as well as inorganic) are contained in a single proton, neutron or electron is rather ridiculous (IMO). It is like attributing the rules, participants and activities of the game of football to the football, itself.

It is interesting this idea of a "need to assume" existing and subsequently, what thoughts and behaviors this need provokes in humans (?)

Particularly, in this context, reinforcing a point i attempted to make earlier. Exactly what difference occurs if we, as individuals, fulfill that subjective need with different assumptions? Does it change anything in the Objective environment of the "Here and Now"? For example, I assume that Higher Powers exist and attribute much of my reality as being caused by such. Others seem to prefer to assume concepts that they are more comfortable with that deny the possibility of Higher Powers existing.

Again, I would suggest that this debate and these differing assumptions, makes a difference only in the realm of the Subjective, the realm of philosophy and faith.

EDIT - concerning the need to assume. Otto Rank, is an interesting figure in the history of psychology. He once postulated that many 'nervous breakdowns" were caused when people realized that their faith/set of assumptions in Words was misplaced. They discovered that the solution to their personal problems could not be solved by expressing just the 'right' combination of words. One usually does not consider his or her use of language to be an assumption of faith - so that it can be quite a shock to realize that words expressed might not result in any type of communication or change.

I think that we all, just "need to assume" that our words can make a difference...

 

[BigApplePi]

This idea that all of the laws of physics and chemistry (organic, as well as inorganic) are contained in a single proton, neutron or electron is rather ridiculous (IMO). It is like attributing the rules, participants and activities of the game of football to the football, itself.

Imagine a camera that could block out the participants and all other activities of a football game but the football itself. Then we study 100,000 games following the path of the football and try to deduce the rules of the game and the paths of the players. What could we discover? What could never be discovered?

 

[SpaceYeti]

What if we call what's happening "Intelligent Design"? One may say what's happening would have happened by chance anyway, so where's the intelligence in that?

Ever play the football pool? Have you heard of casinos? Do you play the ponies? The results of all those are cleverly designed chance activities.

Why would we call it that? Hell, "design" alone insinuates intelligence, and there's no indication of intelligence. There could be intelligence involved in there somewhere, sure, but why would we assume there is without any indication of it? That's like saying "Why don't we call the Theory of Gravity something like 'Noodly Downward Acceleration', or something like that?"

Because we have no reason to presume there's any such thing as the FSM pushing us down instead of Gravity pulling us down.

 

[BigApplePi]

That's true, but it COULD be intelligent design.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's true, but it COULD be intelligent design.

It could also be a galactic gerbil on a spinning space wheel on the back of fifteen purple elephants drunk on juju bees and black licorice dacquiris, singing karaoke of Starship top-40 hits.

We're not really discussing possibility here, we're discussing what can be falsified.

We have no way for getting at whether some galactic bookie set up this game of chance we call life, so what's the point of rational discourse on that matter? Anyone can speculate whatever they want, by definition.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sure. So? We could all be brains in jars, we could be figments in someone else's dream, the world could be a disk on the back of four great elephants on the back of a great turtle... Just because something's possible doesn't mean we have any reason to take the idea seriously.

 

[BigApplePi]

Sure. So? We could all be brains in jars, we could be figments in someone else's dream, the world could be a disk on the back of four great elephants on the back of a great turtle... Just because something's possible doesn't mean we have any reason to take the idea seriously.

It could also be a galactic gerbil on a spinning space wheel on the back of fifteen purple elephants drunk on juju bees and black licorice dacquiris, singing karaoke of Starship top-40 hits.

We're not really discussing possibility here, we're discussing what can be falsified.

We have no way for getting at whether some galactic bookie set up this game of chance we call life, so what's the point of rational discourse on that matter? Anyone can speculate whatever they want, by definition.

So you guys are saying we can't prove it, but for evolution all the details fit.

So now what? Answer: How to best express how the details fit?

Next question: Who cares? Answer: if too many ignore the detailed solution, we have to deal with a lot of dangerous people.

 

[Jennywocky]

So you guys are saying we can't prove it, but for evolution all the details fit.

So now what? Answer: How to best express how the details fit?

This is stuff people can figure out by reading.
Honestly. I don't get paid to do this.
I'm supposed to be on this forum for fun.

If someone is happy with believing what they want and doesn't feel like reading to discover these patterns on their own, why should I invest a lot of time explaining things to them? If someone came to me and said, "I really don't get this, but I want to, can we talk more about it so I can get a grasp in my mind of what this particular argument is about?" then that might be a little different... but this is about as much investment as I care to make in those who have little interest in understand an opposing argument.

I'm not even a staunch evolutionist myself, because there's still ambiguities involved and not everything is explicable. (There is a lot science is still discovering, even just about how people work on the top levels.) It's simply that there is nothing else on the table that is falsifiable right now, and I'm not sure what else would be that wouldn't resemble some for of evolutionary theory... and the things we can test have been used successfully in manufacturing and biological and science fields.

Meanwhile, I.D. makes an unverifiable claim of a creator, so it's not falsifiable.

Case closed.

Next question: Who cares? Answer: if too many ignore the detailed solution, we have to deal with a lot of dangerous people.

You're really vague here, but I'm going to intuit that you mean that if evolution is accepted but people don't understand what that means, there'll be a lot of nihilistic behavior unfolding since there are no universal ethical morals descended from some sort of undefined creator being?

Or maybe I totally missed the mark on that one. You'll have to clarify.

 

[TylerRDA]

It could also be a galactic gerbil on a spinning space wheel on the back of fifteen purple elephants drunk on juju bees and black licorice dacquiris, singing karaoke of Starship top-40 hits.

We're not really discussing possibility here, we're discussing what can be falsified.

We have no way for getting at whether some galactic bookie set up this game of chance we call life, so what's the point of rational discourse on that matter? Anyone can speculate whatever they want, by definition.

The teapot on the moon + Occam's Razor

 

[SpaceYeti]

So you guys are saying we can't prove it, but for evolution all the details fit.

So now what? Answer: How to best express how the details fit?

Next question: Who cares? Answer: if too many ignore the detailed solution, we have to deal with a lot of dangerous people.

Yes, exactly. Not only can't you prove life was intelligently designed, there's no even mild indication of it. However, evolution continually explains all of the aspects of biology and anthropology and medicine and such.

I'm no biologist, so I don't know exactly how this knowledge of evolution is used. I do know that it benefits us in the field of medicine and agriculture, though, in pretty obvious ways (predicting future strains of the flu or breeding sturdier eating food, as examples).

... Everyone who uses medicines or eats food?

 

[EditorOne]

"If someone is happy with believing what they want and doesn't feel like reading to discover these patterns on their own, why should I invest a lot of time explaining things to them?"

Wait, wait, I know the answer to this! It's because --- you're an INTP personality! That was easy!

(Of course you all realize that when you say a creator can't be falsifiable, a tremendous number of people will add "therefore must exist". Most folks here understand the point, but when you walk out the magic door and rejoin the world of Muggles, the context of many statements is lost, words mean what they mean in isolation, and logic is a deep and probably sinister mystery. Just warning you, and maybe making Jennywocky's point, that you can explain this until your hair hurts, your nose turns blue and you have a heart attack, and it will bounce off some people like rubber balls off an Abrams tank. )

 

[Agent Intellect]

Who cares about evolution is an important question. It's been said that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. This is true in a sense. Without evolution, everything in zoology, anatomy, botany, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, microbiology, ecology, nutrition, neuroscience, psychopharmacology and numerous other fields is nothing but a collection of disparate facts.

These facts make sense in light of evolution. For instance:

Why is the genetic code so ubiquitous?
Why are genetic diseases inheritable?
How can bovine insulin and human insulin do the same thing but have a different structures?
How come some diseases affect only some organisms but not others?
How do diseases become immune to antibiotics?
How do antibiotics even work?
Why do we need bacterial flora in our intestine?
Why do humans have vestigial tails, nictitating membranes, appendixes etc?
Why do humans get bad backs and knees as they grow older?
How could something like Huntingtons Disease still be around if it kills people off?
Why do giraffe's have such long and cumbersome necks if it takes so much 'effort' to have them?
Why is sickle cell anemia so prevalent in areas where malaria is prevalent?
Why does our body waste energy conserving pseudogenes?
Why are human males more attracted to females during estrus?
Why do some organisms produce certain nutrients endogenously while others do not?
Why do phylogenetic trees built by the fossil record and anatomical homology, comparative molecular/protein homology, comparative parasite/symbiont studies, mitochondrial DNA tracking, genomics, biogeography and paleoclimatology records, comparative embryology, and karyotype/chromosme comparisons all match up?

There are important consequences, as SpaceYeti mentioned, to medicine and agriculture in light of evolution. Our antibiotics and livestock have been two of the largest evolutionary experiments ever conducted.

After all that I've studied in cellular and molecular biology, I honestly don't understand how half of it would make any sense without evolution; something as simple as a small change in a certain allele for a receptor protein or enzyme can have large (beneficial (1) (2), detrimental, and neutral) affects to an organism. HOX genes are ubiquitous among animals, with mutations causing drastic changes in body plans (one of the factors in the Cambrian explosion).

 

[Wizardry]

Since everyone covered the issue impressively well, I'll just throw in a few thoughts. Science is no threat to religion, stop taking some stance against an idea and staying willfully ignorant just because you think it hurts your belief. The greatest threat to your faith is the hatred filled filth that comes out of many churches (always exceptions) and the antagonistic approach some people of faith take to progress. Scientists are on the verge of really healing the blind, gene therapy for sickle cell (and other diseases), perhaps even ways of stopping aging completely...etc (all sorts of exciting things). Christians get all loud talking about how they are "playing God, its bad, its an abomination". If something displeases God he will intervene, it is written in your holy book. Since he has not showed up directly yet to correct our path you have to assume he knows and is ok with it so far. Otherwise you get raptured....or w/e so its a win for you anyway. That being said I don't think certain aspects of faith will ever die out and arguably they shouldn't. Many people get a lot of satisfaction out of their belief so why take that away from them if they aren't hurting anyone?

*Edited to add
It is always good to try to help clear up bad thinking. Bad thinking spreads like a plague and hurts us all.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Here is my challenge: find something that falsifies evolution. Not something that "is as readily explained by something else as it is by evolution" but something that can only be explained by intelligent design (or whatever other theory you may have, but for some reason ID seems to be the "default alternative" to most people who don't accept evolution). If there is something in the fossil, genetic, protein, or any other record (as previously mentioned in my other response) that can absolutely not be explained by evolution and can only be explained by whatever theory you accept (I'm assuming intelligent design) then please post it.

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is my challenge: find something that falsifies evolution. Not something that "is as readily explained by something else as it is by evolution" but something that can only be explained by intelligent design (or whatever other theory you may have, but for some reason ID seems to be the "default alternative" to most people who don't accept evolution). If there is something in the fossil, genetic, protein, or any other record (as previously mentioned in my other response) that can absolutely not be explained by evolution and can only be explained by whatever theory you accept (I'm assuming intelligent design) then please post it.

I'm not sure this is right, but evolution doesn't explain how life could have come into being. Intelligent Design does. BTW, what would one look for to falsify evolution?

 

[Cogwulf]

I'm not sure this is right, but evolution doesn't explain how life could have come into being. Intelligent Design does. BTW, what would one look for to falsify evolution?

Something to falsify evolution would be finding an ammonite fossil in precambrian rocks. Basically anything appearing out of the agreed sequence.
Alternatively a new species appearing with no identifiable predecessor. Or a species adapting instantaneously

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm not sure this is right, but evolution doesn't explain how life could have come into being. Intelligent Design does. BTW, what would one look for to falsify evolution?

The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life came about. That's not what the theory's about. If you want to consider the theory about the origins of life, that's the theory of abiogenesis. They're related, sure, but they're different theories. Similarily, the theory of gravity doesn't explain where matter came from.

 

[BigApplePi]

Evolution gd science? - Sci Method?

Something to falsify evolution would be finding an ammonite fossil in precambrian rocks. Basically anything appearing out of the agreed sequence.
Alternatively a new species appearing with no identifiable predecessor. Or a species adapting instantaneously

I see.

BTW one of the criticisms by religious fundamentalists is evolution is not subject to the scientific method. That is, one cannot gets results in the lab. (I suppose they are referring to the higher animals.)

I wonder if either I have the scientific method wrong or there is another way of interpreting it? Scientific method normality seeks reproducible experiments over time. What about reproducible experiments over space? Isn't the latter what happens when one has a pattern and then can predict how it will be filled in? Just a thought. I never took a course in biology or any related field.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Evolution gd science? - Sci Method?

I see.

BTW one of the criticisms by religious fundamentalists is evolution is not subject to the scientific method. That is, one cannot gets results in the lab. (I suppose they are referring to the higher animals.)

I wonder if either I have the scientific method wrong or there is another way of interpreting it? Scientific method normality seeks reproducible experiments over time. What about reproducible experiments over space? Isn't the latter what happens when one has a pattern and then can predict how it will be filled in? Just a thought. I never took a course in biology or any related field.

You said it yourself, they're fundamentalists. They're either deceived by other fundamentalists who are lying, or they're the ones who are lying. Evolution has been observed both in and out of the lab. Not merely evolution, either, speciation has been observed.

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

And a quick synopsis of the scientific method may go something like this;
Step 1) Observe a recurring phenomenon.
Step 2) Hypothesize what may be causing the phenomenon you've observed.
Step 3) think up an experiment that would prove your hypothesis is wrong, and conduct it.

From here on out, it's more a flow-chart. However, because the third step is an attempt at disproving your own idea, an idea being falsifiable is obviously an important quality for it to have. Hell, it's essential. If your hypothesis isn't falsifiable, it cannot be science.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Evolution gd science? - Sci Method?

You said it yourself, they're fundamentalists. They're either deceived by other fundamentalists who are lying, or they're the ones who are lying. Evolution has been observed both in and out of the lab. Not merely evolution, either, speciation has been observed.

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

And a quick synopsis of the scientific method may go something like this;
Step 1) Observe a recurring phenomenon.
Step 2) Hypothesize what may be causing the phenomenon you've observed.
Step 3) think up an experiment that would prove your hypothesis is wrong, and conduct it.

From here on out, it's more a flow-chart. However, because the third step is an attempt at disproving your own idea, an idea being falsifiable is obviously an important quality for it to have. Hell, it's essential. If your hypothesis isn't falsifiable, it cannot be science.

Let's see how much of my reaction to that is personal which I'll get to later.

Yes to the scientific method. I have a feel for it but wasn't being careful in what I said about it. I certainly like step 3. Doesn't one get a kick when after trying step 3 a lot, step 2 tends to stick? My intuition says evolution succeeds partly because of repeated step 3's for filling in patterns also. Lab experiments are good, but the fundamentalist will stay out of the lab I assume. Telling a lay fundamentalist about pattern fill-in may throw them into a tizzy because maybe they can understand that.

Anyway here's the personal reaction: I'm a weirdo INTP. As soon as I saw you say, "they're fundamentalists. They're either deceived by other fundamentalists who are lying, or they're the ones who are lying", I thought, "That's his step 2." I don't haul with that. I'm embarrassed this deviates from the subject of this thread a little, but I want to speculate that evolution is for thinking people types. Fundamentalists may be a different personality type: Feeling. What if fundamentalists find believing God laid it down in one swoop is far more appealing than some lab experiments that keep God at a distance? That's a different theory than calling them "liars." Not only is it different, but it relates truth to personality type ... a theory for which I presently have no words.