Author Topic: IPUs, Religion, Science, and all that Jazz  (Read 45673 times)

Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #50 on: September 19, 2007, 03:25:16 AM
(And why are you capitalizing 'evolution' every time you use the word?  It's not a proper noun.) 

Maybe he's talking about this?

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #51 on: September 19, 2007, 03:55:12 AM
(And why are you capitalizing 'evolution' every time you use the word?  It's not a proper noun.) 
Maybe he's talking about this?

I saw that movie.  I've spent years trying to forget it.

Thanks, Heradel.  Argh.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #52 on: September 19, 2007, 03:57:41 AM
(And why are you capitalizing 'evolution' every time you use the word?  It's not a proper noun.) 
Maybe he's talking about this?

I saw that movie.  I've spent years trying to forget it.

Thanks, Heradel.  Argh.

I try.

In other old movie news, Blade Runner's coming to theaters on the 5th.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #53 on: September 19, 2007, 05:12:56 AM
Fair points all, Mr. Eley.

Where in the text does the author claim that it "proves evolution?"  Please point me at that, because I missed it.  At most this is simply a mechanism that is consistent with predictions an evolutionary biologist might make.  No rigorous scientist would call that "proof."  This writer didn't, and he didn't use your words "must have," either.

Well, to be honest, in all of my reading on the topic (which has included books written specifically to criticize creationism and books written specifically to popularize evolution and visits to the Chicago Field Museum) I have never encountered a single attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is true.  In all writings sympathetic to evolution, the theory is simply assumed to be true without requiring any proof.  I have read thousands of pages of speculation on how evolution might have progressed–assuming it happens–but not a single page seeking to prove, from evidence, that it actually does happen.  (Maybe I just haven't read the right books.  Links?)

That statement is admittedly odd, so I'll say again in an attempt for clarity: I have read lots and lots explaining what evolution might look like, if it really does happen.  But explaining how something might look if it is real is not at all the same thing as proving its reality.  Drawing a detailed and well-organized diagram of what it might look like if an ancestor organism were to evolve into myriad species is not the same as proving that said organism really did any such thing.

This analogy might sound flippant, but drawing a detailed anatomical diagram of a dragon does not prove that dragons exist.

In the context of the blog, this post is clearly intended as correlative evidence of evolution, but no one's calling it definitive.  Your argument here is a strawman argument.

I am making an example of this particular argument because 1.) it was the evidence which Werethewild presented and 2.) I am not aware that any stronger arguments exist.  Can you point me to an argument that is more definitive than this one, an argument which seeks to prove that evolution is true rather than simply taking as a given that it is?

(And why are you capitalizing 'evolution' every time you use the word?  It's not a proper noun.)

I capitalize it to distinguish between the phenomenon of adaptive change (evolution) and the idea that all Earthly life is descended from a common ancestor (Evolution).  Since I've been called adaptive change "adaptation" in this context, the capitalization is superfluous.  I guess I'll stop doing it.

If you're walking in a field and see an acorn on the ground, and an oak tree a few yards away, then only your preconceptions might lead you to connect the acorn with the tree.  If you have no preconceptions, the evidence of the acorn really says nothing about the tree one way or the other.

If you're walking in a forest, however, and see hundreds of trees and thousands of acorns upon the ground, and some of the trees have budding acorns upon them, then you really should feel justified in inferring a connection, even if you never see an acorn fall during the short time you're walking.

There is overwhelming evidence that acorns become trees.  I can see the budding acorns.  I can see sprouting acorns on the ground.  I can analyze the DNA of the acorn and the tree and see that it is the same genome.  If I'm patient, I can observe while an acorn grows into a tree.  Observation demonstrates that they are the same species.  If I come upon the tree and the acorn with no preconceptions, then the evidence of my eyes will demonstrate that acorns become trees and trees drop acorns.

This is not analogous to evolution.  With evolution you are pointing to an acorn and a maple "helicopter" and telling me that, once, a very long time ago, they used to be the same species.  This claim does not arise from observation of the trees themselves and cannot be confirmed by observing them.  If I come upon the maple and the oak with no preconceptions, I will see that they bear many similarities to each other, but I will not find any evidence which compels me to believe that they descend from a common ancestor.

I will, however, find circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted so as to support my preconceptions, whatever my preconceptions happen to be.

Each of these bits of evidence, sonic hedgehog and everything else, is an acorn.  Are you going to inspect each one individually and say that it, alone, doesn't prove evolution?  If you lift your eyes from ground level and observe that there are thousands of them, they're highly consistent with each other, and there are trees all around you, does that signify nothing?

It would signify something if your analogy were valid, but I don't think it is, for the reasons I stated above.  A thousand spurious claims are not made credible by the fact that there are a thousand of them.

More to the point, do you really think you're smarter and better informed than the sum of the world's biologists, practically all of whom believe that evolution is a fundamental and well-founded mechanism of their science, with a huge mass of observational evidence supporting it? 

How sure are you that you're the clear and critical thinker in this game, and that the people who spend their lives studying this science are all banally misguided?  What's your insight that they don't have?  Given your self-confessed lack of scientific knowledge beyond the lay level, how confident are you in your superiority?  And what's the rational basis for that confidence?

Smarter?  Better informed?  Absolutely not.  I don't think I'm the smartest person on this thread, much less in the world.  I do think that I have a clarity of thought afforded by my willingness to disregard any and every idea that I find wanting.  I think that many others–despite being smarter and better informed than I am–are unwilling or, by long habit, unable to consider all the possibilities.  A person does not have to be stupid to be wrong.  A person can be intelligent and still wear blinders–a statement with which I am sure you agree.   ;)

My rational basis is simply that I trust my own reason and refuse to disregard it in favor of what an authority figure tells me.  When I am presented with arguments which my reason cannot reject, I reevaluate my beliefs.  But I do not change my beliefs simply because someone told me I should, even if that person is smarter than I am.

Now let me turn that question around: Are you comfortable believing in something simply because smart people told you it was true?  You are well read (better read than I am) and know history.  There have been countless times when the smartest people in a society–those revered and highly paid for their knowledge–were dead wrong about a particular issue.  (Yes, women really are as intelligent as men.  The continents do move.  No, hail is not caused by witches.)  Although the scientific community is most assuredly competent–brilliant–in a general sense, are you sure it is impossible that they could be collectively wrong about something?

---------------

By the way, I really appreciate the civil and respectful attitude in your post.  You're fun to talk to.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 05:15:03 AM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #54 on: September 19, 2007, 06:29:35 AM
Well, to be honest, in all of my reading on the topic (which has included books written specifically to criticize creationism and books written specifically to popularize evolution and visits to the Chicago Field Museum) I have never encountered a single attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

Um.  I'd start with Darwin's Origin of Species.  Seriously.  Have you read it?  I have.  (Okay, I listened to the unabridged audiobook.)  Obviously some parts of what he said have since been disproven or refined, but he was pretty rigorous in his attempt to offer evidence for everything he said, and to provide logical speculations for observed gaps in the evidence.  If you have criticisms of Darwin's methods, I'd like to hear about them.


Quote
That statement is admittedly odd, so I'll say again in an attempt for clarity: I have read lots and lots explaining what evolution might look like, if it really does happen.  But explaining how something might look if it is real is not at all the same thing as proving its reality.  Drawing a detailed and well-organized diagram of what it might look like if an ancestor organism were to evolve into myriad species is not the same as proving that said organism really did any such thing.

Phylogenetic trees built from DNA and protein analysis do nothing for you?  Really?  You find no compelling evidence for common ancestors in the observation that disparate species with highly differing characteristics have a great deal of genetic material in common?  More than they strictly have to?  Or in the striking similarity between "trees of life" built from molecular analysis and trees built from morphological observation?

If this evidence isn't compelling at all, Mr. Tweedy, then I have to wonder exactly what your specific definition of "proof" is, and whether your requirements for it are fully rational and necessary.  In scientific terms, proving a theory usually means constructing a testable hypothesis and determining whether real-world observation is consistent with that hypothesis.  It doesn't always mean experiment; sometimes empirical observation or induction are all that are practical.  Evolution is supported by mountains of empirical observation, at the microscopic and macroscopic level, and there are many testable hypotheses that have been shown to be consistent with it.

It's rarely possible to prove any real-world theory with finality.  There is always the possibility of a better theory later that will replace the current one.  Newton's laws of physics were considered "proven" by experiment after experiment for centuries; but we now know that they're approximations that only work under certain conditions.  At very small or very large scales they fail to predict real observations, and so they have been supplanted by quantum physics and relativity.  Both QP and relativity are considered "proven" in the sense of accurately predicting the results of testable hypotheses, but there are a lot of unknowns in each and they contradict each other in unusual ways.  Yet scientists continue to believe in each.

Do you believe in relativity, Mr. Tweedy?  Do you consider it "proven?" 

What about gravity?  To the current day, no one really understands how gravity works.  Theories abound, but none have been conclusively proven over the other.  Some have testable hypotheses; some do not; and in some cases the testability of the hypotheses is itself in sharp dispute.

In contrast to gravity, there is only one credible scientific theory that explains the multiplicity of species on Earth.  Other theories that have been proposed (yes, I mean ID) are not scientific; they do not produce testable hypotheses.

Are you as skeptical about gravity as you are about evolution?  If not, what would you consider the difference to be?  What might elevate your faith in gravity above your faith in evolution?  Both come down to empirical observation.  Is there anything about the empirical observation of objects moving toward each other in the absence of other forces that might seem more "provable" to you than the empirical observation of disparate species with vast amounts of genetic material in common and morphological similarities that aren't survival advantages?


Quote
I am making an example of this particular argument because 1.) it was the evidence which Werethewild presented and 2.) I am not aware that any stronger arguments exist.  Can you point me to an argument that is more definitive than this one, an argument which seeks to prove that evolution is true rather than simply taking as a given that it is?

My objection is that you mischaracterized the source material.  You said that the author claimed to "prove" evolution and that the correlation observed "must have" a direct relationship.  The author said no such thing.  You did.  If you're going to object to contrary evidence, please do so with accuracy.



Quote
There is overwhelming evidence that acorns become trees.  I can see the budding acorns.  I can see sprouting acorns on the ground.  I can analyze the DNA of the acorn and the tree and see that it is the same genome.  If I'm patient, I can observe while an acorn grows into a tree.  Observation demonstrates that they are the same species.  If I come upon the tree and the acorn with no preconceptions, then the evidence of my eyes will demonstrate that acorns become trees and trees drop acorns.

Sure.  If you were patient enough and were willing to do all the work required to make those observations.  If you had no reason to connect acorns and trees to begin with, would you consider it a valuable use of your time to watch that acorn for a few months and see what it does? 

Evolutionary biology is the same.  It does, granted, require a lot more patience and work to perform the observations.  But they're there. 

(Back in the Middle Ages, people believed that geese came from barnacles.  The reason?  Similar coloring, and the observation that no one ever saw those geese in summer.  Therefore they must be underwater during that time.  It was a while before someone put in the work to disprove that theory.)



Quote
My rational basis is simply that I trust my own reason and refuse to disregard it in favor of what an authority figure tells me.  When I am presented with arguments which my reason cannot reject, I reevaluate my beliefs.  But I do not change my beliefs simply because someone told me I should, even if that person is smarter than I am.

Have you ever, yourself, Mr. Tweedy, watched an acorn to see if it grows into an oak tree?  You just claimed above that it does.  How do you know?  Did you verify it with direct observation?  Or are you believing what an authority figure -- a grade school textbook, perhaps, or a dictionary, or your parents -- told you about acorns?  Is it simply that you were told this, and it doesn't contradict your sense of reason or anything you have observed?

If that's the case, what's different between acorns and evolution?  In both cases, you're being told things by authority figures.  Is there something about evolution that does contradict your sense of reason?  Is there some illogic in it that you perceive that experts don't?  Does it contradict anything you have directly observed?

If it does, please explain.  If it doesn't, why are you insistent on disbelieving evolution and not oak trees?  What is it that bugs you?


Quote
Now let me turn that question around: Are you comfortable believing in something simply because smart people told you it was true?

Very often, yes, unless given a reason otherwise.  I can't take the time to prove every single thing for myself.  Now, if I hear something that goes against my own observations, or common sense, or sometimes my instincts, I might investigate further.  Or if I just think it'd be fun to learn more.  But I'm comfortable being told, say, that my car works on internal combustion without taking the engine apart to be sure.  I'd void a lot of warranties if I was an equal skeptic on everything.


Quote
You are well read (better read than I am) and know history.  There have been countless times when the smartest people in a society–those revered and highly paid for their knowledge–were dead wrong about a particular issue.  (Yes, women really are as intelligent as men.  The continents do move.  No, hail is not caused by witches.)  Although the scientific community is most assuredly competent–brilliant–in a general sense, are you sure it is impossible that they could be collectively wrong about something?

Of course it's possible, and it happens all the time.  And when they're wrong, eventually contrary evidence comes out and the scientific community -- over a period of many years, with some generational warfare and journal-based bloodshed -- changes its mind.  That's called a paradigm shift.  Kuhn wrote a book about it in 1962.  It remains one of the most effective critiques of science on psychological grounds.  (I.e., that science is performed by people, and despite their best conscious intentions most scientists can't put objectivity first.)

The thing is, though: there is no credible competing evidence right now against evolution.  There's no paradigm shift happening that says evolution is wrong.  Not in the scientific community, anyway.  No one has a better explanation.  There are a lot of mechanisms hotly debated and being studied, and perhaps someday someone will discover something in those debates and studies that will turn all evolutionary theory upside-down.  At the current moment, that would have somewhat more effect in biology than disproving relativity would have in physics.

But it isn't happening right now.  Effectively all biologists believe in evolution, based on their own reason and their observation of the evidence.

I've listened to the authority figures, I've read some books (including Origin of Species), I've examined the evidence to my own satisfaction, and I've come up with no reason to disbelieve evolution.  I see much in the world that is strongly consistent with it, and nothing compellingly inconsistent.  There's a lot of weird stuff in the world -- hell, I grow carnivorous plants, I could talk your ear off about weird stuff -- but nothing that makes me say "Evolution could not possibly explain that."  Rather, the weird stuff only increases my sense of wonder at the way beauty manifests in randomness and reproductive pressure.

So that's what I see.  My sense of reason says that evolution works, and that it's pretty damn cool.  You clearly disagree, not just with me but with the scientific world.  I still have to ask what you know that they don't know, that makes you disbelieve the scientific consensus -- it really is a consensus, not just a majority -- on grounds that you consider rational. 

 
Quote
By the way, I really appreciate the civil and respectful attitude in your post.  You're fun to talk to.

Thanks.  I'm actually having some fun with this too.  I know it's unlikely to go anywhere; but right now I'm not expecting to change your mind so much as I'm simply trying to keep the rhetorical knives sharp.  The exercise itself is engaging, whether or not it achieves anything.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 06:41:10 AM by SFEley »

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #55 on: September 19, 2007, 07:03:01 AM
I guess I'll take this pass.

That statement is admittedly odd, so I'll say again in an attempt for clarity: I have read lots and lots explaining what evolution might look like, if it really does happen.  But explaining how something might look if it is real is not at all the same thing as proving its reality.  Drawing a detailed and well-organized diagram of what it might look like if an ancestor organism were to evolve into myriad species is not the same as proving that said organism really did any such thing.

This analogy might sound flippant, but drawing a detailed anatomical diagram of a dragon does not prove that dragons exist.

Ok, but there is some evidence that strongly supports evolution. Such as Lucy. Such as the entire fossil record.

Furthermore there's the entire Genetics/DNA bit of the evidence puzzle, but I'd rather leave that explanation to someone that knows more about it. But the entirety of known life having DNA sequences in common does tend to suggest to me a common ancestor, albeit far removed.

Evolutionary biologists not drawing a flippin' diagram from that creative bit in their brain, they're filling in the bits that the fossil record hasn't, and possibly won't. They are postulating what might be discovered in that record in the future.

Quote
I am making an example of this particular argument because 1.) it was the evidence which Werethewild presented and 2.) I am not aware that any stronger arguments exist.  Can you point me to an argument that is more definitive than this one, an argument which seeks to prove that evolution is true rather than simply taking as a given that it is?

Your problem appears to be with the theory of Universal Common Descent, to which I would point you to Wikipedia, as they have a fairly decent primer on the subject.

Look, you're reading stuff written by biologists. Now, most (and by most let's say about 95-99.9%) believe that evolution is a no-brainer. When they write, they talk about it in those terms, because most of them feel like defending it's kind of like defending the fact that if a rock is thrown up at less than escape velocity, it will fall back down.

Quote
There is overwhelming evidence that acorns become trees.  I can see the budding acorns.  I can see sprouting acorns on the ground.  I can analyze the DNA of the acorn and the tree and see that it is the same genome.  If I'm patient, I can observe while an acorn grows into a tree.  Observation demonstrates that they are the same species.  If I come upon the tree and the acorn with no preconceptions, then the evidence of my eyes will demonstrate that acorns become trees and trees drop acorns.

This is not analogous to evolution.  With evolution you are pointing to an acorn and a maple "helicopter" and telling me that, once, a very long time ago, they used to be the same species.  This claim does not arise from observation of the trees themselves and cannot be confirmed by observing them.  If I come upon the maple and the oak with no preconceptions, I will see that they bear many similarities to each other, but I will not find any evidence which compels me to believe that they descend from a common ancestor.

I will, however, find circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted so as to support my preconceptions, whatever my preconceptions happen to be.
I think you missed Steve's point. In our frame of reference we can see the acorn grow from a bud and fall. But what about a mayfly or similar short-lived species? If they were to come across that same tree, how would they know that a few weeks back the acorn was a bud?

Humans live about 60-80 years. Evolution takes place at a much, much slower pace. The last bit of evolution that we've tracked to the human species happened five thousand years ago (becoming lactose tolerant). We've managed to force evolutionary changes at a quicker pace (dogs for a quick example), but for the most part it is a long, slow, process. In the previous example we're the long lived humans. In life, we're even shorter-lived than the mayflies.

Quote
Smarter?  Better informed?  Absolutely not.  I don't think I'm the smartest person on this thread, much less in the world.  I do think that I have a clarity of thought afforded by my willingness to disregard any and every idea that I find wanting.  I think that many others–despite being smarter and better informed than I am–are unwilling or, by long habit, unable to consider all the possibilities.  A person does not have to be stupid to be wrong.  A person can be intelligent and still wear blinders–a statement with which I am sure you agree.   ;)

My rational basis is simply that I trust my own reason and refuse to disregard it in favor of what an authority figure tells me.  When I am presented with arguments which my reason cannot reject, I reevaluate my beliefs.  But I do not change my beliefs simply because someone told me I should, even if that person is smarter than I am.

Now let me turn that question around: Are you comfortable believing in something simply because smart people told you it was true?  You are well read (better read than I am) and know history.  There have been countless times when the smartest people in a society–those revered and highly paid for their knowledge–were dead wrong about a particular issue.  (Yes, women really are as intelligent as men.  The continents do move.  No, hail is not caused by witches.)  Although the scientific community is most assuredly competent–brilliant–in a general sense, are you sure it is impossible that they could be collectively wrong about something?

I'd say you're touching on Godwin'ing the thread, but you've previous stated some unfamiliarity with forums and their peculiar bit of subculture. Yes, large groups of people can be very wrong about any number of things. But the fact that a very large group of very smart people have evolution (both micro and macro) as one of the bases of their worldview cannot be considered a strike against it because, well, to evaluate based on that bit of logic is ridiculous. I prize non-conformity as much as the next guy, but in your case you're using it as a means to your end, not an end in and of itself.

We've had this argument here before. I know I'm not going to change your mind. You aren't going to change mine. Perhaps what you say is true, and the right bit of evidence at the right moment would cause you to reevaluate your beliefs.

Logically, I find the likelihood of a single life-form coming into being from chaos and then creating offspring who created offspring to the Nth degree, who over vast quantities of time split into separate species specialized for different tasks that allowed them to live and reproduce, or die off, far more likely that any kind of god/gods/Q coming along and creating all the life that we see here. I'm not sure how that first bit of inanimate matter became animate, though there are certainly theories I find interesting, but I am certain that I have not heard a better explanation of life that avoids the metaphysical.




Edit: Well, that teaches me for thinking that Steve would sleep and thus I could take a break from replying (in a much poorer fashion) to watch the Daily Show.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 07:06:48 AM by Heradel »

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #56 on: September 19, 2007, 10:04:14 AM
Let´s see. First sonic hedgehog is a cool name. There is also a hedgehog gene family member called tiggy-winky. You can have hours of fun going through Flynome and enjoying the names genes have been given (for example kenandbarbie is a gene where the mutants have no genitals). There is a slight misunderstanding in that sonic hedgehog is actually responsible for the polarity of the limb (defining what is front and back) and not for the initial budding of the limb. Limbs forms at boundaries of Hox (homeobox), but that is immaterial right now.

From your post you claim that the only evidence possibly acceptable as evidence of evolution would be to hold a proto-gene in your hand and watch it become sonic hedgehog or a homeobox gene. However you have dismissed observed mutations of genes in fruit fly into genes with new functions as “merely adaptation”.

Your personal redefinition of evolution into two “different” things is incorrect and does nothing except try to muddy the waters. By definition evolution is the change of inherited traits over time. Whether we are talking a timescale we can watch in the lab or not is immaterial, we are talking of exactly the same mechanism. Nowhere has a scientist claimed that what occurs over millennia is any way physically different to what occurs over weeks in a fruit fly. That has been your claim and it is unsubstantiated. Please show me how the two are biologically different.

You disagree with phylogenetic studies – the establishment of relationships based on similarity of the gene – as providing any evidence of common ancestry. Yet you are quite happy to accept that genes change. We´ve seen that in labs and it is these physical observations of mutation methods and rates of change which form part of the basis of phylogenetic analysis. There are many way of analysing phylogenetically, including unrooted trees which just establish how close or distant the gene sequences are from each other and make no claims of age or evolutionary sequence. It assumes nothing more than what has been observed in a lab ie. that genes change over time.

This is a known fact, proven by incredible amounts of hard physical evidence.

You have agreed with this. Therefore I understand you to mean “I accept that genes change but only so far”. So I wish to know where this stopping point is in your idea of genetic change and what the mechanism is that prevents it from continuing.


The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #57 on: September 19, 2007, 05:27:45 PM
I'm going to try to respond to all three of these posts, starting at the top and working down.  If I skip something, it's because I think my response to a post higher up already covered that point or just to save time since–astonishingly–my soul-sucking day job is actually keeping me pretty busy today.

Um.  I'd start with Darwin's Origin of Species.  Seriously.  Have you read it?  I have.  (Okay, I listened to the unabridged audiobook.)  Obviously some parts of what he said have since been disproven or refined, but he was pretty rigorous in his attempt to offer evidence for everything he said, and to provide logical speculations for observed gaps in the evidence.  If you have criticisms of Darwin's methods, I'd like to hear about them.

I haven't read The Origin for two reasons 1.) I'm pretty sure I understand what it says and 2.) Darwin's theories have been superseded.  Darwin knew nothing of genetics and believed that physiological changes in an organism could be passed on to its offspring.  I do respect Darwin: He discovered a very important principle of biology, natural selection.  That he grossly overestimated the implications of his discovery is excusable, given the state of biological knowledge at the time.

I suppose I should read it, though, if only because of its historical significance.  (I keep meaning to get around to the Koran too, but it just isn't as fun to read as The Bourne Ultimatum.)

Phylogenetic trees built from DNA and protein analysis do nothing for you?  Really?  You find no compelling evidence for common ancestors in the observation that disparate species with highly differing characteristics have a great deal of genetic material in common?  More than they strictly have to?  Or in the striking similarity between "trees of life" built from molecular analysis and trees built from morphological observation?

No.  Phylogenetic trees prove nothing about origins.  Of course similar organisms have similar genes.  How else could it be?  Of courses humans and chimps have very similar genomes: They are very similar organisms.  Of course humans and bananas have 25% of their genes in common: On the chemical level, a human and a banana tree are doing many of the same things.  This is the only way life could be.  For every organism to have its own utterly unique genome would not only be bizarre and counterintuitive, it would be physically impossible.

Here's an analogy: People all over the world build structures with pointy roofs*.  According to the "tree of life" logic, this is proof that all human structures are variants of a single primordial structure which had a pointed roof.  How else could you explain the similarity?  This is obviously silly: People build pointy buildings because it is a structurally stable design that has the added benefit of shedding rain.  The fact that the same structure is used in multiple places proves nothing about the origin of that structure.  It proves only that said structure works well.  Working well, it is used in many places.

Similarly, if a gene is good at doing a particular thing, it only makes sense that said gene would appear in all organisms that need that thing done.  How else could it be?  Would you expect each organism to have a unique gene to achieve the same end?

*Yes, I know it's really because of the prayer leeches.

Are you as skeptical about gravity as you are about evolution?  If not, what would you consider the difference to be?  What might elevate your faith in gravity above your faith in evolution?

This is complete apples and oranges.  1.) I observe gravity happening every day.  I do not observe evolution.  2.) Newton's theory is easily testable through experiment.  Evolution cannot be so tested.  3.) Newton's theory can be applied to produce accurate predictions about what will happen in the future.  Evolution has no predictive power.

Is there something about evolution that does contradict your sense of reason?

There certainly is: Evolution claims that useful information is spontaneously generated where no information was previously present.  My observation of the universe tells me that this does not happen and my reason tells me that it is not possible.

The thing is, though: there is no credible competing evidence right now against evolution.

That is absolutely irrelevant.  There was once no competing theory about the origin of geese other than that they came from barnacles.  Lack of competition does not prove that a theory is true.


But the fact that a very large group of very smart people have evolution (both micro and macro) as one of the bases of their worldview cannot be considered a strike against it because, well, to evaluate based on that bit of logic is ridiculous.

Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that wide belief is a strike against it.  I'm saying that wide belief is not evidence that an idea is correct.  (If it were, none of you would have any excuse to be atheists, since most people believe in some kind of godish thingy.)  The number of people who believe or disbelieve in an idea is not proof of anything one way or another.

Your personal redefinition of evolution into two “different” things is incorrect and does nothing except try to muddy the waters. By definition evolution is the change of inherited traits over time. Whether we are talking a timescale we can watch in the lab or not is immaterial, we are talking of exactly the same mechanism. Nowhere has a scientist claimed that what occurs over millennia is any way physically different to what occurs over weeks in a fruit fly. That has been your claim and it is unsubstantiated. Please show me how the two are biologically different.
As I've said, the difference is that in the sort of adaptation we observe in nature, no new information is being created.  Existing genes shuffle, swap functions, become dominant or recessive and sometimes even migrate to other organisms.  But these are all refinements to existing information.  This is distinct from the creation of new information.

All of the information necessary to build a wiener dog is present in a wolf.  Selective breeding brings out the desired traits and suppresses the undesired ones, but no new traits are created in the process.  This is the sort of adaptation that Darwin was smart enough to recognize.  But you cannot breed a dog with tentacles, even if you breed for a billion years, because the information needed to build a tentacle is nowhere present in a dog.  That would be evolution, and that is what I do not believe happens.

---------

Evidence that I would find convincing:
If someone were to describe a method by which a dog with tentacles could be bred–not actually breed one, but simply outline a method as to how it could be done, assuming an immortal breeder who has no limits on time or patience–then I would consider that evidence that evolution could really happen.  That would be a real, credible theory.

----------

Whoa!  I've taken way too long writing this.  I really need to get some work done.  :(

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #58 on: September 19, 2007, 05:53:23 PM
I haven't read The Origin for two reasons 1.) I'm pretty sure I understand what it says and 2.) Darwin's theories have been superseded.  Darwin knew nothing of genetics and believed that physiological changes in an organism could be passed on to its offspring.  I do respect Darwin: He discovered a very important principle of biology, natural selection.  That he grossly overestimated the implications of his discovery is excusable, given the state of biological knowledge at the time.

Unacceptable.  You're claiming that no book you've encountered on evolution ever makes an attempt to prove its case, and here you are deliberately ignoring Exhibit A.  You're wrong about its relevance today.  It doesn't represent everything we know, of course, but it's still fundamental, and what he says remains important.  And when you say "No one's tried to prove..."  Well, you're just flat wrong, and now you're dismissive of the evidence that shows it.

Mr. Tweedy, I haven't read the Bible.  I'm pretty sure I understand what it says, and I believe its theories have been superseded. 

Now.  If I start to tell you, in detail and with examples, everything I think the Bible is wrong about, and you know I haven't read it, will you have as much respect -- or even time -- for my arguments as you might if I had read the Bible?

(In truth, the fact that I haven't read it is one of several reasons why I don't argue about Biblical lore with people.)


...I'll get to the rest later.  Maybe.  I have work to do too, and you're starting to wear down my patience at this time, because more and more you're showing that you're not really thinking about this with an open mind.  You're thinking very selectively, dismissing lines of inquiry because you've decided ahead of time that they won't tell you anything, and totally ignoring correlative evidence in a way that no scientist would.  And then you tell everyone else that the entire scientific community has blinders on, and you're the one who doesn't.

This was fun for a while, at 2 AM when I needed to procrastinate.  It's less fun today. 

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #59 on: September 19, 2007, 06:46:01 PM
Whoa!  Hang on a second!  I thought The Origin had been superseded because Scientific American told me it was.  I assumed they knew what they were talking about.  I've heard from multiple sources that contemporary ideas of evolution have changed enough that The Origin no longer describes them accurately; I'm not trying to avoid evidence.

Your insinuation that I have been systematically ferreting out only those sources which support my preconceptions is both untrue and insulting.  If you're convinced The Origin is so important, I'll check out a copy today and see for myself.  As a matter of fact, I put it on hold just now.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 06:47:50 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #60 on: September 19, 2007, 07:00:25 PM
Quote
In all writings sympathetic to evolution, the theory is simply assumed to be true without requiring any proof.


That's really silly. Go read biological papers. If you lack the training, gain it -- or, alternately, confess your ignorance.



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #61 on: September 19, 2007, 07:01:01 PM
You said that nothing you had read on evolution (which, if I understand your accounts correctly, consists primarily of layman's distillations and rhetorical platforms) ever made an attempt to prove its hypotheses.  That is the specific point to which I was speaking in recommending the book.

I'm not saying that everything in OoS is right.  I'm saying it's important, and I'm saying that Darwin made a consistent and rigorous effort to prove his hypotheses with real evidence.

If you read it, and you still say that no biologist in your experience (including Darwin) has ever tried to prove their claims, we'll talk further.  And if the Scientific American article to which you're referring actually said that Darwin's work is no longer relevant, and no longer important reading, please give me a citation.  You've mischaracterized other people's words before in this thread, and that's one I will want to check out for myself.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #62 on: September 19, 2007, 07:04:26 PM
Ugh, PZ on Pharyngula posts entries like every other day explaining the workings of evolution. Admittedly, he thinks creationists are fools, so it would a pretty toxic atmosphere for you. But you can't claim that the material's not there, any more than I can claim that no one writes theology.

Stephen Jay Gould is an *excellent* starting point on learning how evolution works. He even has a theory of separate magisteria that provides an out for the religious, so that atmosphere is more conducive to those of you who are religious. Gould writes about the history of scientific theory in a very approachable way.

Or you could start with Bill Bryson.



FNH

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • F Napoleon H
    • Black Dog Of Doom
Reply #63 on: September 19, 2007, 07:08:13 PM
You people all need to relax a bit. 


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #64 on: September 19, 2007, 07:16:54 PM
And if the Scientific American article to which you're referring actually said that Darwin's work is no longer relevant, and no longer important reading, please give me a citation.

No, it did not say it was irrelevant; SciAm speaks of OoS only with the deepest reverence.  It said that OoS has been superseded by later theory and does not describe evolution as it is understood today, primarily because we know about DNA and Darwin didn't.

Which is what I said in the first place.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #65 on: September 19, 2007, 07:22:27 PM
No, it did not say it was irrelevant; SciAm speaks of OoS only with the deepest reverence.  It said that OoS has been superseded by later theory and does not describe evolution as it is understood today, primarily because we know about DNA and Darwin didn't.

Just read it.  If, afterwards, you believe your statement that no book on evolution you've ever read has tried to prove its claims remains true, tell me.  And we'll discuss that.

As Palimpsest says, you have to read the science to get the proof.  Not all the metahoopla about the science.  If you feel that no one's trying to prove anything, you're looking in all the wrong places.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


wherethewild

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
Reply #66 on: September 19, 2007, 08:31:18 PM
You look at lobsters and dogs and say “But they look really different and there´s no dogster around to prove that they are related”. You do say “I accept that change happens” but you cannot accept that – as a wow! brand new idea!- CHANGE CAUSES THINGS TO ACTUALLY CHANGE. And the biggest point:

Lots of little changes over a long period of time can result in big changes.

But the mechanism underlying that is still the little changes which WE CAN PROVE ABSOLUTELY OCCUR.

You still have not explained why you reject unequivocally that this could possibly be the case.

Much as I´m getting rather sick of analogies, and feeling they´re beginning to make things blurry, here´s my attempt at one.

We start with a gene. Over a while, within a population there´s a bunch of different mutations. Most aren´t viable, some make no difference, some are advantageous. The advantageous one appears more in the population, itself undergoes a minor mutation which also is advantageous and so on and so on and so on (we all get this). So now to my analogy: word morphs.

We start with OOZE and, simply by switching one letter at a time we produce DOGS.

OOZE-DOZE-DONE-DONS-DOGS.

Not immediately obvious or necessarily logic to the layman thinker that these two could be connected, but they are. And if on the path to dog a different letter change occurs we might get fowl.

Here´s an even more complicated web of word morph possibilities, including Russell as everyone´s favourite outlier.

                 ooze         
                    |         
                 doze         
   /         /         |                     \      
dome      dole   done               daze   
   |         |         |                       |     \
dime      doll      dons               raze    dale
   |         |         |        \           |       |
rime      boll      dogs    dots      rage       bale
  |        |                     |           |       |
rise      bowl                cots       rags     base
  |        |                     |           |       |
wise      fowl              cats       rugs    bash
  |                                        |       |
wish                                     bugs   nash
  |               
fish               



So you look at the current species and think “Look! Fish and bugs are completely different! And you can´t tell me otherwise because, well, just look at them!”

But there are some older species still around (in bold). There the relationship is clearer. For example BASH is very clearly related to NASH (and explains the other discussion thread going on). Also, genetics gives us the tools to examine and discover that the S in dogs and cats is extraordinarily similar. Or that the D´s in doll, dots and dale are also.

Now here´s the second point from this. Clearly fish and fowl are very very different. But at what point did they become very very different? It certainly wasn´t doze becoming dome or dole – at this time both possibilities were just a single change from the parental type. What about dime then? Well hang on, that´s just a single change from it´s parental type. And rime is very similar to dime and so is rise to rime. But hang on. Now we have doze and rime. Are these different enough to be new species? If so where was the border? Which change was the one that made it something completely new?

This is what you´re asking and the answer is THE SUM OF THEM.

And this is the point that you are completely ignoring. You seem to think that genetic change happens in a little circle where it changes to a point, but not enough to make it physiologically different. You accept genetic change as fact but reject that it actually changes anything. And you want clearly defined borders. You want: This point RIGHT HERE is where it became something ASTOUNDINGLY new.

If that WAS the case it would be called Intelligent Design.

1.) I observe gravity happening every day.  I do not observe evolution. 

Every scientist working with fruit flys has. That you decide to call it something else does not change the fact that it IS evolution. You are deliberately misleading yourself.

As I've said, the difference is that in the sort of adaptation we observe in nature, no new information is being created.  Existing genes shuffle, swap functions, become dominant or recessive and sometimes even migrate to other organisms.  But these are all refinements to existing information.  This is distinct from the creation of new information.

All of the information necessary to build a wiener dog is present in a wolf.  Selective breeding brings out the desired traits and suppresses the undesired ones, but no new traits are created in the process.  This is the sort of adaptation that Darwin was smart enough to recognize.  But you cannot breed a dog with tentacles, even if you breed for a billion years, because the information needed to build a tentacle is nowhere present in a dog.  That would be evolution, and that is what I do not believe happens.

How on earth do you know this? Can you really predict what mutations may occur to what genes and what long reaching effects they may have? The genes responsible for beginning limb development are in ALL METAZOANS, from jelly fish onwards regardless of their limb count. The ground material is absolutely there, all ready. How do YOU know that we aren´t a transition state between an ape and something completely different? How can you predict that ooze won´t, absolutely not, no way in hell could it possibly, turn into fish?

I´ve given you examples of genes EVOLVING NEW FUNCTIONS (eg. the drosophila paper earlier in the thread) and you´ve agreed with them. So I´m left to assume it is deliberate blindness on your part, or a total failure to be able to think things through without your religious blinkers on (no matter what you claim about your superior ability to be impartial). Or you´ve read a little too much Behe because some of your statements sound like direct quotes from Darwin´s Black Box or Edge of Evolution. In which case, I shall point you in the direction of this cutdown to Behe´s completely false statements about HIV, and further proof that genes DO develop absolutely new functions (and you know what? genes are going to keep doing it regardless of your opinion on the matter or how much you want to define your own vocabulary around them):
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html

As I´m leaving soon I probably won´t be able to reply to this thread. I´m left with the impression that you are squeezing your eyes closed, have your fingers stuck in your ears and are singing very loudly in order to ignore everything that could possibly make you question your correctness.

In fact, I think you´ve managed to directly copy Behe again:

He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
(Dover court case ruling, pg78 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf)


The Great N-sh whispers in my ear, and he's talking about you.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #67 on: September 19, 2007, 09:07:18 PM
I'm flattered you went to the trouble to draw out that cool diagram for me, but it wasn't necessary.  I could have drawn it for myself.

Incidentally, your link raised the total number of Behe sentences I have read from 0 to 7.  I'm not sure who Behe is, so I can't really comment on whether he and I think the same things.  Maybe I'll pick up one of his books after I finish The Origin of Species.

Anyway, I think I'm going to say "I give up."  This isn't feeling very fun anymore, and I suspect it is also pointless.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #68 on: September 20, 2007, 05:40:00 AM
Um Steve i question gravity more than evolution. Not that gravity exist but i question its constancy.

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #69 on: September 20, 2007, 05:41:39 AM
Ok im kinda new hear and i may have missed the definition phase of this contest so pleas define evolution for me. In the context of this argument.

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #70 on: September 20, 2007, 04:21:01 PM
Using Mr.Tweedy's standard of proof I'm going to decide next week whether or not Yahweh exists.  I have invited him to a poker game at my place.  If he shows up and is able to describe how he made the world while winning twenty hands in a row, I'll think about maybe believing he exists.



swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #71 on: September 20, 2007, 04:44:21 PM
I doubt it

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #72 on: September 20, 2007, 04:47:36 PM
Using Mr.Tweedy's standard of proof I'm going to decide next week whether or not Yahweh exists.  I have invited him to a poker game at my place.  If he shows up and is able to describe how he made the world while winning twenty hands in a row, I'll think about maybe believing he exists.

I cannot use science to prove that God exists: I never claimed that I could.

You're obviously just making fun of me, but I will point out that your proposed experiment means nothing.  If Yahweh doesn't show up for poker, it could mean either 1.) He doesn't exist or 2.) He has declined to participate in your experiment.  You have no empirical means of determining whether 1 or 2 is correct and consequently your experiment yields no meaningful results.

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #73 on: September 20, 2007, 06:18:23 PM
Using Mr.Tweedy's standard of proof I'm going to decide next week whether or not Yahweh exists.  I have invited him to a poker game at my place.  If he shows up and is able to describe how he made the world while winning twenty hands in a row, I'll think about maybe believing he exists.

I cannot use science to prove that God exists: I never claimed that I could.

You're obviously just making fun of me, but I will point out that your proposed experiment means nothing.  If Yahweh doesn't show up for poker, it could mean either 1.) He doesn't exist or 2.) He has declined to participate in your experiment.  You have no empirical means of determining whether 1 or 2 is correct and consequently your experiment yields no meaningful results.

I never said I was trying to disprove her.  I just said that it is possible I could be convinced.  I'm trying to keep an open mind.



swdragoon

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 82
    • friends hating friends
Reply #74 on: September 20, 2007, 06:34:41 PM
um are either of you going to answer my question?

i did like the Her jab :)

Improvise, Adapt ,Overcome.