Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[fantome profane]

Is this what it has come to,nit picking on a theory of evolution,everyone has been quite certain on that or is that different?

Who is nit picking? What I am trying to tell you about science is extremely important, it is fundamental. Nothing in science is ever proven absolutely! That is not a “nit”. It is the essence of science!

 

[England my lionheart]

The theory of evolution is not proven absolutely, but most scientists will consider the evidence (some of which Autodidact has been trying to show you) to be “proof enough”. That does not mean that it is beyond question. But if you are content to use the term “proof” in a relative sense for other areas of science then you cannot demand that it be absolute in regards to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not absolutely proven, but it is extremely well evidenced.

In law a man is innocent until found guilty,an Englishman was hanged on overwhelming evedence,years later was found to be innocent.
If the evedence like auto has given out to us all is good enough for you ,thats cool but until proven should not be regarded as the absolute as some would have it.
For myself i do not think it matters where we came from and i do not think it is possible to sve it and even if we did would it be questionable?

 

[fantome profane]

In law a man is innocent until found guilty,an Englishman was hanged on overwhelming evedence,years later was found to be innocent.

This has nothing to do with the English legal system or what is or is not considered proof in a court of law.
(which by the way is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not "absolute proof".
With my understanding of the evidence I am confident in saying that the theory evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not absolutely beyond all doubt)

If the evedence like auto has given out to us all is good enough for you ,thats cool but until proven should not be regarded as the absolute as some would have it.

Agreed, that is what I have been trying to say to you all night. peace

For myself i do not think it matters where we came from and i do not think it is possible to sve it and even if we did would it be questionable?

Amen brother! Everything is questionable in science!

 

[painted wolf]

Science is neither a democracy nor a nation.
Evidence is the demand... Theories are torn at and picked apart, those that can't take it tossed cruely to the side.

Science is cruel, demanding and merciless.... and that is why it works.

No appealing to public opinon, no 'gut feelings'... no popularity contests.

Newtons theories have been shown to be incomplete and thus they have been modified or replaced... no sentiment tword a great man... Einstein's theories were shown to be imcomplete and so they too got the treatment... Quantum is now going through the same process.

Lamarks theories were found wanting... Darwin added and modified them....Darwin was found incomplete and Mendel added his part.... Mendel was found incomplete and so on untill 150 years later modern Evoltuionary theory stands as one of the most brutally tested thoeries in existance.

But there it remains... modified and trimmed of all its baby fat.

While you may want to hoist up a nuclear bomb as "proof" of Einstins theory of Relitivity... his theory was lacking... Quantum theory had to plug the holes left by Einstien.

In fact Einstien hated Quantum theory and refused to consider many of its implications.
This is where his famous "God does not play dice" quote comes from... his blatent disregard for Quantum theory.
Yet Quantum theory remains a vital part of physics and science and making bombs and other bits of modern life work.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I thought you knew about law,evidence is not proof

And science is not law.

I really get tired of typing the same things at the end of the thread as at the beginning. It makes you feel like you're not getting anywhere. I'm also getting tired of people who know absolutely nothing about science nevertheless having paradoxical confidence in their rejection of it.

SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROOF. NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR PROOF. SCIENCE IS ABOUT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE IS THE HOLY GRAIL OF SCIENCE, AS GOOD AS IT GETS. Maybe I should make a master post with the definition of a theory, the importance of evidence, the basic fact that ToE is a scientific theory about diversity of organisms, and just refer people to it, so I don't have to repeat this stuff.

 

[Autodidact]

so,we have it,the jury is still out,i differ about proof not existing in science although it depends on which branch.
When we all look at the evidence some only see what they want to see,i have spent many years involved in domestic and wild animals(my Dad was a farmer)the similarities between human and animals are there for all to see and the bond between man and horse for example or man and dog makes it difficult to reject we all come from a common ancestor.
I have ,since this thread started i have read about so much about toe and very interesting though it was,it seems to me that nobody actually knows what the truth is.
Scientists have this way of being like a bull in a china shop and do not make for good debate as their minds are very narrow and any information other than scientific is discarded.
Although the debate over toe is'nt about whether there is a God or not it is mainly supported by atheists as if this is their religion which is basicaly the same as believing in God,unproven.

All creationists, without exception, eventually reveal that they are fundamentally anti-science, which is why they are so dangerous.

 

[Storm]

Maybe I should make a master post with the definition of a theory, the importance of evidence, the basic fact that ToE is a scientific theory about diversity of organisms, and just refer people to it, so I don't have to repeat this stuff.

It wouldn't do you any good. Well, it might save time on typing.

 

[Autodidact]

Tesla was a scientist and his work was proven.Baird was a scientist and my wife watches TV every night ,the german scientist whos name i have forgotten but helped put a man on the moon through rocket science is'nt that proof.
The mines that were used in the first world war were they not developed by science,the proof is in the pudding as the saying goes and toe is an incomplete pudding.

No, it wasn't. You're mistaken. Tesla's work was well-supported by the evidence, JUST LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That's as good as it gets in science.
As for proof in pudding, evolutionary theory also yields many practical benefits. For example, the work being done now in prevention of bird flu epidemic is entirely based on it.

 

[Autodidact]

On Tesla i would have to disagree as industry have been using the fruits of his work for years,an easy way to see his work in action is to either buy or build a Tesla coil,it works.

Ignorance is excusable. Ignorance that refuses to learn is not. Medicine uses the fruits of ToE every day--just like your hero, Tesla. Darwin is at least a great a scientist as Nikola Tesla.

 

[Autodidact]

So the fact that my freind no longer requires glasses and can see is'nt beyond question or how about ohms law that is used when designing electric circuits and the circuit works is that not proof when thetv works or the light comes on or the computer works etc,yes it can always be improved but it works and in working proof enough

Exactly. The same is the case for ToE. There is as much evidence for ToE as for any theory in science, including the theory that the earth is round. That's why it's the basis for all modern biology. Period.

 

[Autodidact]

In law a man is innocent until found guilty,an Englishman was hanged on overwhelming evedence,years later was found to be innocent.
If the evedence like auto has given out to us all is good enough for you ,thats cool but until proven should not be regarded as the absolute as some would have it.
For myself i do not think it matters where we came from and i do not think it is possible to sve it and even if we did would it be questionable?

So you must reject all of science then, as ToE is as well evidenced as any fundamental scientific knowledge, including the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. If the evidence in favor of that (which I doubt that you even know what it is) is good enough for you, that's cool but until proven should not be regarded as the absolute as some would have it.

Nothing in science is absolute. ToE is exactly like all scientific knowledge--provisional. The fact that you are completely ignorant of the very basis of science does not change this fact. ToE is not absolute--it's just like all scientific knowlege--the best we have. Biologists regard it as having the highest possible degree of scientific certainty. Which is still not absolute. Get it?

 

[Francine]

Nothing in science is absolute. ToE is exactly like all scientific knowledge--provisional.

People who come from the mindset that knowledge must be non-negotiable (like Scripture) cannot respect the provisional. Fortunately their papers do not typically get published in Nature.

 

[Autodidact]

So imagine what ToE is saying about DNA: every living thing on the planet uses the same material to reproduce: DNA, aka genes. If this is true, the same core DNA has been replicated and passed on in every organism on the planet. Wow. That's why it's a huge risky prediction to say that all life on earth will be based on DNA. So far, every one has. When they discover new worms living at the heat vents hundreds of feet under the sea, or new bacteria in Antarctica: DNA. ToE predicted that. Thousands of thousands of predictions, and every one borne out.

Further, once it was discovered, DNA gives us a way to confirm many other predictions about the relationships between organisms. The idea is that species change when mutations arise in the DNA ("genome"). So the more mutations, the further apart those two species are related.

Think of what I was saying earlier about homologies. ToE says we will find homologies between species that are closely related. We can look at them to see if they look related, but the differences in their DNA will tell us how close or far apart. Remember the bird and bat wing vs. the bat wing and whale flipper and mole foot? ToE says that the weird homology between the bat wing, mole foot and whale flipper means they are more closely related than the bird and the bat, even though the bird and the bat superficially look alike. And, sure enough, the DNA shows fewer differences between the three mammals than the bird and the mammals.

And remember what I was saying about nested hierarchy? That means that species branch out and develop some, bringing their genetic heritage with them. So, since the bat, mole and whale are all mammals, they will all be warm-blooded, all give birth to live young, all nurse their young--despite their vastly different ways of life.

Another example would be insects. Because they all evolved from a common ancestor, all insects have 3 body parts, no arterial system, 6 legs, lay eggs. Insects are the only invertebrate to evolve flight. Therefore, if you find and invertebrate that flies, you also know that it will have 3 body parts and 6 legs. You just won't find a flying invertebrate with 4 or 8 legs. ToE explains why--exactly why. As Dobzhansky says, nothing in Biology makes sense without evolution.

 

[England my lionheart]

So imagine what ToE is saying about DNA: every living thing on the planet uses the same material to reproduce: DNA, aka genes. If this is true, the same core DNA has been replicated and passed on in every organism on the planet. Wow. That's why it's a huge risky prediction to say that all life on earth will be based on DNA. So far, every one has. When they discover new worms living at the heat vents hundreds of feet under the sea, or new bacteria in Antarctica: DNA. ToE predicted that. Thousands of thousands of predictions, and every one borne out.

Further, once it was discovered, DNA gives us a way to confirm many other predictions about the relationships between organisms. The idea is that species change when mutations arise in the DNA ("genome"). So the more mutations, the further apart those two species are related.

Think of what I was saying earlier about homologies. ToE says we will find homologies between species that are closely related. We can look at them to see if they look related, but the differences in their DNA will tell us how close or far apart. Remember the bird and bat wing vs. the bat wing and whale flipper and mole foot? ToE says that the weird homology between the bat wing, mole foot and whale flipper means they are more closely related than the bird and the bat, even though the bird and the bat superficially look alike. And, sure enough, the DNA shows fewer differences between the three mammals than the bird and the mammals.

And remember what I was saying about nested hierarchy? That means that species branch out and develop some, bringing their genetic heritage with them. So, since the bat, mole and whale are all mammals, they will all be warm-blooded, all give birth to live young, all nurse their young--despite their vastly different ways of life.

Another example would be insects. Because they all evolved from a common ancestor, all insects have 3 body parts, no arterial system, 6 legs, lay eggs. Insects are the only invertebrate to evolve flight. Therefore, if you find and invertebrate that flies, you also know that it will have 3 body parts and 6 legs. You just won't find a flying invertebrate with 4 or 8 legs. ToE explains why--exactly why. As Dobzhansky says, nothing in Biology makes sense without evolution.

What about the fruit fly experiment?

 

[Autodidact]

What about the fruit fly experiment?

Which fruit fly experiment exactly, and what about it? What, if anything, is your point? Is this supposed to be responding to my post in some way? Do you have anything to say about DNA and its powerful evidence for ToE?

You do know that ToE was well established in Biology 100 years ago, and does not rest primarily on any experiment done in the last 25 years, right?

 

[Francine]

You do know that ToE was well established in Biology 100 years ago, and does not rest primarily on any experiment done in the last 25 years, right?

An experiment in descent with variation is not likely to produce a new species because a great many generations are required for a species seperated by environmental changes to become so different they cannot produce offspring between them when they come back together. And at any rate, the random factor of mutations and natural selection assures any artificial experiment will not be able to be duplicated no matter how carefully it is documented. Creationists pounce on these shortcomings, of course.

 

[England my lionheart]

So ladies are you saying that despite the fruit fly experiment being conducted by scientists that ran the equivalent of a million years does'nt count for much.

 

[throwback]

So ladies are you saying that despite the fruit fly experiment being conducted by scientists that ran the equivalent of a million years does'nt count for much.

Such an experiment (breeding animals under a significantly increased mutation rate) is in no way a reasonable model of long-term evolution, and it takes only a simple model to show why.

Let's assume that, out of every 1000 mutations, one conveys an advantage within its environment, twenty are detrimental, and the remainder are neutral. From what I understand, these are fairly close to reasonable numbers.

Now, let's set the number of mutations per generation to 120 (the experimentally-determined average for us humans - fruit flies may well be somewhat different). In this case, the probability of any individual having at least one positive mutation is 1-(1-1/1000)^120=0.11, or about 11%. Similarly, the probability of at least one negative mutation is 1-(1-20/1000)^120=0.911. However, the most interesting number is the probability of having at least one positive mutation, with no negative mutations. In this case, that would be 0.11*(1-0.911)=0.01, or 1%. That is, using these numbers, you'd need a population of at least 100 to reasonably expect an individual offspring with positive and no negative mutations.

Now, what happens when you increase the mutation rate to, say, 500 per generation? In this case, you'd need a population of 62,000. A thousand per generation? About a billion. Two thousand mutations per generation? Excel crashes out with a divide-by-zero error.

Admittedly a very simple model, but I think it illustrates the problem with this approach. Ironically, you end up with exactly what you expect - a bunch of sick, degenerate bugs.

 

[Autodidact]

So ladies are you saying that despite the fruit fly experiment being conducted by scientists that ran the equivalent of a million years does'nt count for much.

No, I'm saying

Which fruit fly experiment exactly, and what about it? What, if anything, is your point? Is this supposed to be responding to my post in some way? Do you have anything to say about DNA and its powerful evidence for ToE?

You do know that ToE was well established in Biology 100 years ago, and does not rest primarily on any experiment done in the last 25 years, right?

 

[painted wolf]

*sigh*
No they are saying that the fruit fly experiments don't show the equivalent of millions of years as you seem to think they do.

The most they 'represent' is thousands of years.

I don't understand why you blatantly disregard everything said to you.

wa:do