darrenpollok Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Yeah!!! Another fanboy!! Keep 'em coming!! There are two contradictory creation myths in the bible: the one at the start of Genesis, and the one starting at Genesis 2:4. So it's already not possible to "resolve them with what science knows". The two accounts don't even agree as to whether animals or humans were created first, or whether Eve came from Adam's rib or was just created from fresh molecules. It makes no sense to attempt to reconcile these stories with science. ALLEGORY.....goodness, I'm starting to have less faith in God with you goobers.Really Lord?!? The amazing thing is that, as much as you guys try to dispell the possibility of God, the more you open the door. If you choose to ignore Him, that is your choice. Just accept it. In the meantime, accept the fact that you are a minority, and most people realize that the "scientific" explanation is lacking. Most people realize that there is much more than what can be seen or observed. The question is, when they reach out to you, how will you react?
ribuck Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Darren, your posts are adding no value. You have shown no interest in rationally exploring any of the points that you have raised.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 The name of a particular theory or idea is irrelevant to the observations that have been made. These observations are measurable and can be found consistently throughout nature. For example, Darwin's observation of species mutation and selection, Hubble's measurement of the expanding universe, the COBE background radiation measurement, and radio isotope dating are all irrefutable, measurements that have been put through the rigor of testing that the scientific method demands. In supporting the BB, these observations were not sought out to prove it as such. It is important that children be exposed to the periodic table and the math needed to understand it. It is quite hard to understand these things without high-level math (calculus, etc), which many of us do not use, and therefore do not know. Also, if you never had chemistry, the periodic table probably never came up. However, we must understand the fundamentals of matter in so far as to say what exists and what does not. While it may be worrisome to take a bunch of often statist, atheist, scientists' word for it, math has no confirmation bias. Math is the most precise human language ever invented. If these observations can be shown mathematically, which they are, then you have to work with what is known. Go with the flow. You understand the issue, too bad I can up vote only one time, if it takes learning math, astronomy, chemistry and the scientific method to understand these ideas, no wonder atheists are a minority...
ccuthbert Posted January 26, 2014 Author Posted January 26, 2014 Well, as the thrower of this bomb, i was at first glad to see a lot of posts in my abscence, but after reading the them I was sad to see not much movement in the conversation. I would like to point out that if people re-read my post, I think it is pretty clear by my quoting Mebane that I was not referring to Darwin's hypothesis (theory, NOT) as a myth by resorting to any argument based in religion. Here is an example of the psyops, or as Rand referred to it, a packaged deal. It is assumed that if one believes in darwin's myth, then one is scientific and anti-religion. Further, it is assumed that if one does not believe darwin's myth, then one is religious and anti-science. Gee, guess what? There are other possibilities. The truth of it is that many scientifically minded people who have examined darwin's myth have realized that it does not hold up. I have looked at the science and i have determined that darwin's theory is not scientically supported. Note I have not said that I "believe" he is right or wrong. It is my assessment that it is incorrect. No religion here, not of the ancient Hebrew variety, nor of the modern american scientism variety. The people who think that Gould's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is supportive of darwin's natural selection hypothesis may be listening to Gould's propaganda overlay to his science. Nobody in mainstream science can come right out and say darwin was wrong without serious ramifications. That is because modern science is a creature of the gov't and as such politicized--not uncommon in the history of mankind. There is scientific evidence that evolution occurred, but there's no absolute certainty. There is no hard scientific evidence that species arise as the result of small changes through natural selection over many years. That is darwin's myth--not evolution, but the method--that has never been supported by evidence nor by experiment. Scientists at the time of Origin pointed out that the title of the book was incorrect, because he did not demostrate how species arise. He described changes in a species over time, yes, but emergence of species, no. If you are interested in scientific arguments against darwin then go back to my first post and fork over the bucks to read Mebane's essay. It is well worth it.
dsayers Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 No religion here, not of the ancient Hebrew variety, nor of the modern american scientism variety. Science's inability to explain conclusively where life came from does not put it on a level with religion. Religion is anti-rational while science is repeatable, provable, and evolves as new information and methodology come to light. In the context of the origins of life, science does not claim to have the answer, but religion does. Please substantiate your comparison here.
Kevin Beal Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 What would success in this conversation look like? (I'm genuinely curious, it's not a leading question.)
ccuthbert Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 What would success in this conversation look like? (I'm genuinely curious, it's not a leading question.) Certainly an absence of name calling. It also would be nice if more people could envision a scientific challenge to the orthodoxy. Rather than repeat that of course Darwin was right, it would have been better if people looked into Mebanes' essay before commenting. Anyway, a few people do realize that the intelligent design proponents have very valid and serious questions about darwin's myth. One does not have to espouse intelligent design to question Darwinism. It is a logical fallacy to discredit all ideas from religious people simply because they are religious—appropriately called the genetic fallacy. ;-) I was introduced to Mebane's essay probably about 15 years ago by an objectivist md. We had a objectivist discussion group in my city and this md presented his ideas on why darwin was wrong to about 12 of us. Not one of us disagreed with what he said. I don't know about the others in the room but as for me, I had always scratched my head over darwin, realizing, when? in high school? that his myth did not answer the question of how species arise. There has never been any experimental support for darwin, and it's not without lack of trying. My bs antennae have been active over the years aimed at the Darwinism since there have been lies in support of the myth: the peppered moth controversy, the lining up of fossils to show ordered evolutionary progression, etc. Piltdown man is always in the back of my mind when I consider Darwinist arguments. I myself can't verify the “fossil record.” Who among us can? How do we know it is being represented accurately? It seems to me that many of us default to accepting “scientific arguments” wherever used. If an “expert” says something is so, we defer. I think this is very dangerous and being used against us. We need to bear in mind that just about all aspects of our lives have been politicized. All kinds of decision we should by right be making for ourselves have been taken away and given to “experts” to make base on efficiency and science. But what if the science isn't right? How do we verify it? It seems to me that it is becoming increasingly difficult to even question it. Tptb don't have to punish us for questioning the orthodoxy, we help them by punishing each other. “You don't believe in Darwin???? (rolls eyes) What, are you born again or something?” Thanks for reading. I hope we can continue cordially.
dsayers Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 I hope we can continue cordially. What does THIS mean? I don't think calling science religions or theories myths is cordial. I especially do not think that ignoring a request for clarification of the same is cordial.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Well, as the thrower of this bomb, i was at first glad to see a lot of posts in my abscence, but after reading the them I was sad to see not much movement in the conversation. I would like to point out that if people re-read my post, I think it is pretty clear by my quoting Mebane that I was not referring to Darwin's hypothesis (theory, NOT) as a myth by resorting to any argument based in religion. Here is an example of the psyops, or as Rand referred to it, a packaged deal. It is assumed that if one believes in darwin's myth, then one is scientific and anti-religion. Further, it is assumed that if one does not believe darwin's myth, then one is religious and anti-science. Gee, guess what? There are other possibilities. The truth of it is that many scientifically minded people who have examined darwin's myth have realized that it does not hold up. I have looked at the science and i have determined that darwin's theory is not scientically supported. Note I have not said that I "believe" he is right or wrong. It is my assessment that it is incorrect. No religion here, not of the ancient Hebrew variety, nor of the modern american scientism variety. The people who think that Gould's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is supportive of darwin's natural selection hypothesis may be listening to Gould's propaganda overlay to his science. Nobody in mainstream science can come right out and say darwin was wrong without serious ramifications. That is because modern science is a creature of the gov't and as such politicized--not uncommon in the history of mankind. There is scientific evidence that evolution occurred, but there's no absolute certainty. There is no hard scientific evidence that species arise as the result of small changes through natural selection over many years. That is darwin's myth--not evolution, but the method--that has never been supported by evidence nor by experiment. Scientists at the time of Origin pointed out that the title of the book was incorrect, because he did not demostrate how species arise. He described changes in a species over time, yes, but emergence of species, no. If you are interested in scientific arguments against darwin then go back to my first post and fork over the bucks to read Mebane's essay. It is well worth it. If the argument was made for the theory, would you be able to understand it? Do you know how DNA works in the offspring? Do you understand the decades old experiment done with bacteria, in fact, ever heard of it? Do you see how artificially changing a dog's appearance would be like, if it was done in a period of billions of years? Do you know how the bird flu virus might end up affecting human population, or how other monkey's HIV / ebola might end up in humans? Why there is such a thing as males and females? Why genetic disorders often happen when brothers / cousins have babies? Do you know the real nature of the coccyx bone, also referred to as the tailbone? Do you know why genetic sequencing of human DNA and chimp DNA has led to almost identical results? Have you looked into the fossil evidence? Do you realize how if there were no fossil evidence at all, the evidence going for evolution is still larger than the one going for gravity? Do you realize that intermediate species fossil evidence has been found in large quantities anyway? Do you understand that it makes less sense to look into Darwin's book for evolution, than to look into Newton's to understand gravity? That theories change over time because new evidence allows for improved theories? (Special Relativity/Quantum Mechanics)
Think Free Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Well, I think we (except Friendly Hacker) can all agree that we should get the government out of science and schools and stuff, and that that would help bring clarity to a number of scientific issues.
cab21 Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 If you are interested in scientific arguments against darwin then go back to my first post and fork over the bucks to read Mebane's essay. It is well worth it. post the arguments here? paying to find out what the arguments are, from the person who made the claim, is a bit strange.
ccuthbert Posted January 29, 2014 Author Posted January 29, 2014 What does THIS mean? I don't think calling science religions or theories myths is cordial. I especially do not think that ignoring a request for clarification of the same is cordial. It meant that i interpreted some of the back and forth to be less than cordial. i am not ignoring anything, i'm just not able to post regularly. Btw, i didn't call science religions. I equated scientism with religion. Modern science has gone down the wrong path in several areas. Due to its heavily bureaucratic nature, changing direction is difficult. So yes, this is one "theory" that I call a myth. Not sure what's wrong with that... I will try to devote the time to outlining arguments against darwinism later this week. Punctuated equilibrium was an attempt to rescue darwinism, btw, and it shows where darwin was wrong. If the argument was made for the theory, would you be able to understand it? Oh, i dunno, would you? Maybe someone on the forum would like to read it...
dsayers Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 i am not ignoring anything, i'm just not able to post regularly. Btw, i didn't call science religions. I equated scientism with religion. Modern science has gone down the wrong path in several areas. Due to its heavily bureaucratic nature, changing direction is difficult. I talked about this already: Science's inability to explain conclusively where life came from does not put it on a level with religion. Religion is anti-rational while science is repeatable, provable, and evolves as new information and methodology come to light. In the context of the origins of life, science does not claim to have the answer, but religion does. Please substantiate your comparison here. You posted again in the thread after this without addressing this, hence my observation that you were ignoring it. Further evidenced by you again making the comparison and even going so far as to say that science is bureaucratic and difficult to change direction. There is no bureaucracy. If you disprove something that was previously accepted as true, it will no longer be accepted as true, assuming your disproof is objective, consistent, and repeatable. Compared to religion that has no null hypothesis, IS bureaucratic, and never changes. So yes, this is one "theory" that I call a myth. Not sure what's wrong with that... Two things. First being that mythology is not based on reality. Darwinism is based on reality and even has a very simple null hypothesis. Secondly, the fact that scientists call it a theory rather than the truth is because it's not proven, it just hasn't been disproven. Were you to call it a theory, you'd still be adhering to your assertion that it's not proven. Instead, you call it a myth to manipulate the subject matter.
RestoringGuy Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 While it may be worrisome to take a bunch of often statist, atheist, scientists' word for it, math has no confirmation bias. Math is the most precise human language ever invented. If these observations can be shown mathematically, which they are, then you have to work with what is known. Go with the flow. It's a slight overstatement. Mathematicians often make leaps when it comes to foundational axioms. Maybe most math (basic linear algebra or finite combinatorics) has no confirmation bias, but I think there is some conflict and personal grudges with regard to axiom of choice, non-well-foundedness, continuum hypothesis, computability, law of the excluded middle, etc.
Wesley Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I equated scientism with religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses: To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[16] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[17] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[18] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[12] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[19][20] I would appreciate if you would define what scientism is in your usage and for the area where science has overstepped its bounds, what other method should be used for determining truth from falsehood. It may help frame the discussion better if terms are defined properly.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I will try to devote the time to outlining arguments against darwinism later this week. Punctuated equilibrium was an attempt to rescue darwinism, btw, and it shows where darwin was wrong. Obliviously Darwin was wrong, he didn't know about DNA, that's why I compare him with Newton, Newton was wrong about gravity, but saying that gravity is a myth is just silly. People who study biology today are not basing everything they know in a 150 years old book.
ccuthbert Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 Ok, friendly, now I'm really confused. You agree that Darwin was wrong. So what have you been going on about all this time???? Newton was wrong about gravity, but saying that gravity is a myth is just silly. Right, and nobody said that. so... your point? dsayers, why don't you get together with friendly, here. He apparently knows that darwin was wrong. ;-) Darwin's "theory" should not be called a theory because it doesn't fit the definition: a coherent group of tested general propositions that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. His assertion that small changes that arise due to natural selection over many generations produce new species, aka microevolution creates macroevolution, has not been supported by evidence, which is why punctuated equilibrium has been proposed. And, his propositions have not been predictive. If anything, it should be called an hypothesis. There is no bureaucracy in science? What are all those buildings in DC, then, the thousands of university departments with tenured profs, the hundreds of journals, the grant proposal and grant vetting machines, the peer review process, the gov't agencies that pick "theories" to publicize? There is a common understanding that the older generation must die out for new ideas to be accepted. Your model of how science works is nothing like what i've witnessed or read about...
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I apologize. I used the words "no bureaucracy" when what I was challenging was your claim of a "bureaucratic nature." The words I should've chosen would've been "not naturally bureaucratic." Almost all of your list of bureaucracy is based on the state, which is in and of itself philosophically false and therefore cannot be used as a measure of truth. As for journals, grants, and peer review, I'm not sure why you'd take issue with these. Particularly peer review. How else will you know if something is true if you do not test it? If others, who have no incentive in it being true, test it also? All of this is very different from religion. I continue to challenge your comparison while you continue to dodge the challenge. An easy way to lose your audience is to overstate your case. Which is why I've focused on your comparison of science to religion and theory to myth. If your position was valid, you wouldn't need to make use of these tactics.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Right, and nobody said that. so... your point? My point is that Darwin was wrong about Evolution, in the same way that Newton was wrong about Gravity. Darwin lived at a time where people didn't know about DNA sequencing. Newton lived at time where people didn't know about atoms. They are both wrong so both theories underwent massive change the past 150 years. Every scientific theory is wrong because they're not about the truth, they are about ever increasing approximation to a measured reality. Sometimes a new idea greatly decreases the margin of error to those approximations, or someone finds out about a previously unknown reality.
ccuthbert Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 Self-Excavator, this is what I think of when i use the word scientism, as you offered above... "To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific." [emphasis mine] dsayers, No apology necessary. ;-) Ok, I look at science v religion this way. In the US today, there is a science bureaucracy (like the church hierarchy) that determines what is researched through govt grants, determines what is a theory through university faculty, peer review, journal editorial boards. etc., and in this way essentially determines what is considered scientific. Then you have schools (seminaries) where some people learn the "language" of science (latin) but the vast majority of the population is so dumbed down by iatrogenic schooling that they can't understand that language. The scientists are revered for being intellectuals (priests) and their pronouncements (revealed truth) are accepted as a matter of course by the general population. Even scientists in other fields blindly follow the experts and are actively discouraged from crossing over. There's plenty of corruption--for example, science by press release, threats against researchers who challenge the orthodoxy, holding back promising young scientists in post-doc slavery, theft of students' thesis work by profs etc. If you want to think of it as an analogy, i suppose you could, but i look at it as the shared characteristics of large, bureaucratic institutions. People in large groups mostly suck. About peer review, that's a tough one. When if functions well, it seems the best way of vetting experimental results and new ideas. However, it's is a double edge sword, entrenching old ideas in spite of mounting evidence and shutting off whole lines of inquiry from needed funds. I don't have an answer for how to improve it on an institutional level, but we must all recognize and be on guard for its short comings. After all, scientific truth is not defined by popularity or majority vote or the approval of wizened old profs. My point is that Darwin was wrong about Evolution, in the same way that Newton was wrong about Gravity. Darwin lived at a time where people didn't know about DNA sequencing. Newton lived at time where people didn't know about atoms. They are both wrong so both theories underwent massive change the past 150 years. so I should have said that Darwin was wrong but he was a really nice guy??? My original post said that he was wrong, you admit he was wrong, so again, I don't understand what you were going on about... Can't we just agree to agree? "Every scientific theory is wrong because they're not about the truth, they are about ever increasing approximation to a measured reality. Sometimes a new idea greatly decreases the margin of error to those approximations, or someone finds out about a previously unknown reality." And sometimes the "theory" is just plain wrong, should be thrown out but the politics of the times won't allow it. Darwinism ain't the only one, that's for sure... ps, just thought i'd mention that even though this is not a long post, it took me a really long time to write. I just don't have the time to do this on a regular basis. I will try to get to that outline this weekend, but it will take a lot more of my time...
FriendlyHacker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 As far as I know nothing is beyond scientific inquiry. Religious claims can be measured, tested and reproduced just like anything else, saying it's impossible is completely ignoring the fact that 100 years ago, it was considered impossible to ever leave Earth's atmosphere. If you say something is impossible, it means that anyone who has ever lived, or who will live in the future, won't be able to come up with a solution for it. People don't know how science will be in 20 years, let alone 1 million years. so I should have said that Darwin was wrong but he was a really nice guy??? My original post said that he was wrong, you admit he was wrong, so again, I don't understand what you were going on about... Can't we just agree to agree?And sometimes the "theory" is just plain wrong, should be thrown out but the politics of the times won't allow it. Darwinism ain't the only one, that's for sure... I can't agree with you because you missed the point about approximation to reality, sometimes the general idea is correct and the details are wrong, so you fill in the blanks and it actually becomes better instead of going to the trash bin. For instance people have recently been able to measure DNA being changed by the environment, that does not mean that everyone should completely scrap Darwin's ideas and adopt Lamarck's instead. It only means that both things are probably complementary and both are, in a sense, a correct description of the known reality.
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Again, ccuthbert, most of what you talked about was the state. It's like saying that grocery shopping is a violent act because criminals walk in, take stuff, hold people at gunpoint, etc. Even with all the governmental influence, joe scmoe can still come along, prove something false or explain something better, and impact our understanding of reality. Meanwhile, God is all knowing, creates humans, kills almost all of them off for being the evil he knew they were going to be, while telling them killing will land you in eternal hellfire, but he loves you. Ask anybody religious about these contradictions and they won't even consider it because the "word of God" is not to be questioned. You can talk about how government tries to model one onto the other (possibly in an attempt to dissuade people from relying on rational thought that doesn't lead to the necessity of the state). But you cannot reconcile your comparison of science to religion. I for one would appreciate it if you withdrew that claim and made the case you had to make based on its merits rather than calling it a disparaging name.
ccuthbert Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 dsayers, the fact is that gov't today dominates the sciences. that's what i'm talking about--the state of science today. That's why i used the word scientism. You seems to be referring to some ideal of science. (Are you a platonist?) I don't see how I have anything to "withdraw." Friendly, "I can't agree with you because you missed the point about approximation to reality..." I did not. I dismissed your point. You might just as well be rah, rah Lamark for the same reason. Instead I'm guessing that you would prefer to throw Lamarck out. Darwin, good, Lamarck bad. Hmmm, I wonder why... Btw, I'm also wondering why you think that when I write in disagreement of your posts, you assume that I'm mentally defective.
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 dsayers, the fact is that gov't today dominates the sciences. that's what i'm talking about--the state of science today. That's why i used the word scientism. You seems to be referring to some ideal of science. (Are you a platonist?) I don't see how I have anything to "withdraw." I don't know. I don't get into labels. I'm a truthist. I accept that 2+2=4. Government mandate cannot change this. The method by which I verify 2+2=4 is rigorous, objective, and repeatable, which is different from "God said so." If you do not see the difference, then I'm afraid we have little left to discuss.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I did not. I dismissed your point. You might just as well be rah, rah Lamark for the same reason. Instead I'm guessing that you would prefer to throw Lamarck out. Darwin, good, Lamarck bad. Hmmm, I wonder why... Btw, I'm also wondering why you think that when I write in disagreement of your posts, you assume that I'm mentally defective. What I have actually mentioned above is that both Larmarck and Darwin might be valid and not be mutually exclusive, so you are either not reading what I'm writing or you don't understand it.
ccuthbert Posted January 31, 2014 Author Posted January 31, 2014 Friendly, *sigh* yet another mentally defective comment. frankly, i skim your posts trying to avoid the insults... didn't make it this time.
Wesley Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Friendly, *sigh* yet another mentally defective comment. frankly, i skim your posts trying to avoid the insults... didn't make it this time. I didn't see him insult, but he was trying to point out what the logical possibilities were. He stated you may not understand his point. You on the other hand am calling his posts "mentally defective" which I would consider an insult. If you want a thread to be free of insults, I wouldn't start throwing them around. dsayers, the fact is that gov't today dominates the sciences. that's what i'm talking about--the state of science today. That's why i used the word scientism. You seems to be referring to some ideal of science. (Are you a platonist?) I don't see how I have anything to "withdraw." Platonism is that there is another world outside of this one by which standards of truth can be determined by "philosopher kings" who then translate the implementation to the plebeians. If your standard of truth is the scientific method applied to the real world, then this is just about the opposite of Platonism.
Kevin Beal Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Thanks for reading. I hope we can continue cordially. No, apparently you don't.
Alex Bell Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 dsayers: My understanding of the idea of scientism is that, as ccuthbert described, the current level of bureaucracy has led to falsehood being believed scientifically derived because people labeled "scientists" said so. For example, it's commonly asserted that Global Warming/Climate Change is "settled science" because "97% of 'scientists' agree." Consensus is not science, but it's being currently pedalled as such because "scientists" are in consensus. This state of affairs does not invalidate the scientific process itself, but does require one interested in actual science to further validate purported "science" oneself beyond determining who it originated from as, unfortunately, not all scientists can be relied on. ccuthbert: It seems to me that what Friendly means is he thinks at least parts of Darwin's theory are true, but is also willing to accept that other parts of it may be false. Two questions for you: Do you think any part of Darwin's theory to be true? What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?
LanceD Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 We know that there is ongoing genetic variation in every species. We know that genetic variations are passed on to offspring. We know that there are selective environmental pressures which cause individuals with certain genetic variations to be more (or less) likely to survive and produce offspring. Given those three pieces of knowledge, how can evolution not occur?Seems like this is more like evidence of adaptation. Where members of a species with certain traits are more successful at survival and mating. I don't see how this results in a species evolving into another species entirely. Note, I'm not arguing anything here since I have no allegiance. I simply have questions about evolution I've never bothered to try and find the answers too.
ribuck Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 I don't see how this results in a species evolving into another species entirely. Eventually there comes a point where certain individuals have adaptations which are so extreme that those individuals can no longer inter-breed with the mainstream of their species. From that point on, the individuals with that adaptation will breed only with others of the same adaptation, and a new species has come into existence, which will in time undergo further evolution.
LanceD Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Eventually there comes a point where certain individuals have adaptations which are so extreme that those individuals can no longer inter-breed with the mainstream of their species. From that point on, the individuals with that adaptation will breed only with others of the same adaptation, and a new species has come into existence, which will in time undergo further evolution.Yeah I get that, however that doesn't really help me understand how a fish evolves feet.
Wesley Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Yeah I get that, however that doesn't really help me understand how a fish evolves feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Here is a transitional species of fish that had begun to develop lungs, feet, and other tetrapod-like characteristics. Fish who were able to develop muscles and skeletal structure to start having load-bearing limbs became the species that won out the natural selection game in areas of shallow water pools and muddy land.
st434u Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Hey ccuthbert. I'm sorry for all the attacks you've suffered in this thread. Unfortunately it is too often the case that when people disagree, they will attack, even in a place like FDR. Being someone who is always questioning the status quo of things, I often find myself in this situation. I don't like to say it, but you do get used to it. I agree with you that many sciences have been corrupted by the State to the point where they get many or even most things wrong, to varying degrees. From my own research I can include here the sciences of economics, psychology, parenting/education, archeology, medicine and climatology; and I have questions about many others, such as physics (think: quantum mechanics). I often doubt the validity of fossil records. It often seems to me like they might just be sculpting a stone into looking like a fossil, or finding a rock with particular attributes that make it look like what they're trying to find. Likewise I question the reliability of radiocarbon dating. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the decay will be exactly the same over 100 million years as it can be observed in a few years in a lab. And where did they come with this "margin of error" for it? Either way, I don't think any of that is necessary to recognize the implications of the Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection. Even if the Earth is very young, and even if none of the fossils we've found are real; once you agree that mutations happen, that they can sometimes be passed on from one generation to the next, and that certain mutations will be more or less fit to the environment, you have evolution. Species, in sexually reproducing organisms, are classified mainly by the ability of a male to produce fertile offspring with a female. So a horse and a donkey are a different species because they will only be able to produce non-fertile offspring, a mule (or a hinny). Mules or hinnys can't produce offspring with any other animals, even with other mules or hinnys. The reason we say all mules are the same species as other mules is because they all have this similarity, and look the same (without getting to the DNA level). A horse and a lion are different species because they can't produce any offspring at all. The genetic difference between a horse and a donkey is much smaller than between a horse and a lion, but in both cases they are different species. This leads to interesting experiments. For instance, there was this experiment I read about where they fed two groups of fruit flies different diets. I think one of the groups had fruits, and the other had honey, or something like that. Either way, after a few generations (which with fruit flies only takes a short period of time), the flies from one group were no longer able to produce fertile offspring with flies from the other group. However, they were both still able to produce fertile offspring with fruit flies found in the wild. Here you have an example where A and B are different species, but C is the same species as both A and B. If the fruit flies from the experiment were to be released in the wild, they would soon mix with the wild population until the genetic differences would dilute enough for them to all become the same species again. But if they are kept in isolation, there will be no genetic mixing between the two groups, and each will follow a different evolutionary path. So when you ask "how did species arise", the answer I would give is that species evolve. If what you're asking is how did life first arise, that's another question. But once you have lifeforms, the development of different species is simply a matter of genetic mutation + selective pressure (either natural selection or artificial selection), for the transformation of one species into another, and in particular, the addition of genetic isolation (which may or may not include physical isolation), for the splitting of one species into two or more different ones. Different races or breeds (race is natural, breed is artificial) of the same species have genetic differences, but because they're still able to produce fertile offspring with each other, they are able to dilute these differences if the genetic isolation is removed (and a significant degree of genetic isolation is required to produce different races or breeds). The process by which a single species can get different races or breeds, when taken to a larger level, produces different species.
Recommended Posts