Definition of True Science?

[David Gould]

I think we have a diference in our interpretation of what Darwin said. I interpret him to mean that a strucyure or part of a structure was developed to exclusively benefit another organism, but not that the other organism could not produce a structure that would exclusively benefit it (the original one).

If someone could get us more of the quote, maybe we could test our interpretations.

God Bless!

I am unsure what you mean in the above.

But in regard to what Darwin said, that is not actually the issue. Regardless, symbiotes are not falsifications of evolution.

The things that I posted would be - a host or a prey species developing structures that benefited the parasite or predator and not the host or prey.

 

[DayAge]

Gould said,
Symbiants gain mutual benefit, not exclusive benefit.
Someone had to be first. That would make it exclusive.

Now, if you could show that the host of a parasite has developed a structure that provides it with no benefit but benefits the parasite then you would have something.
Did you read the articles? Each is providing the other something it does not need.

God Bless!

 

[David Gould]

http://www.science-times.org/chapter6page13.html

Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. Although many statements may be found in works on natural history to this effect, I cannot find even one which seems to me of any weight. It is admitted that the rattlesnake has a poison-fang for its own defence and for the destruction of its prey; but some authors suppose that at the same time this snake is furnished with a rattle for its own injury, namely, to warn its prey to escape.

I would almost as soon believe that the cat curls the end of its tail when preparing to spring, in order to warn the doomed mouse. But I have not space here to enter on this and other such cases.

This is where the quote is from.

 

[DayAge]

Gould,
Clarification for above:
Each is providing the other something it (itself) does not need.

What Darwin said, is the issue. It is the one lucaspa brought up and the one I am talking about. If you want a different issue just say so.

God Bless!

 

[David Gould]

Gould said,
Symbiants gain mutual benefit, not exclusive benefit.
Someone had to be first. That would make it exclusive.

Why does someone have to be first? Think about gradual change over time.

Now, if you could show that the host of a parasite has developed a structure that provides it with no benefit but benefits the parasite then you would have something.
Did you read the articles? Each is providing the other something it does not need.

God Bless!

They do not need them now. Originally, they did.

But they need each other and as such they continue to produce the stuff that the other needs. If they did not, they would lose the benefits gained.

It makes more sense to look at a symbiant group as a single organism evolving over time.

 

[David Gould]

Gould,
Clarification for above:
Each is providing the other something it (itself) does not need.

What Darwin said, is the issue. It is the one lucaspa brought up and the one I am talking about. If you want a different issue just say so.

God Bless!

Understood. See above answer.


And reading Darwin's idea for falsification I have no problem with it. He is correct - if such could be found it would falsify natural selection.

 

[DayAge]

What Darwin was defending against was this:
"But to the progenitor of the upland goose and of the frigate-bird, webbed feet no doubt were as useful as they now are to the most aquatic of existing birds. So we may believe that the progenitor of the seal had not a flipper, but a foot with five toes fitted for walking or grasping; and we may further venture to believe that the several bones in the limbs of the monkey, horse, and bat, which have been inherited from a common progenitor, were formerly of more special use to that progenitor, or its progenitors, than they now are to these animals having such widely diversified habits.
Therefore we may infer that these several bones might have been acquired through natural selection, subjected formerly, as now, to the several laws of inheritance, reversion, correlation of growth, &c. Hence every detail of structure in every living creature (making some little allowance for the direct action of physical conditions) may be viewed, either as having been of special use to some ancestral form, or as being now of special use to the descendants of this form either directly, or indirectly through the complex laws of growth.
Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. "

Darwin was saying that structures produced in one creature were not "exclusively" for the benefit of one of it's ancestors.
He would be shocked to see that structures would be produced for the "exclusive" benefit of a totally unrelated organism.
It would be like Hume, after telling Paley that watches and organisms were too dissimilar for a good analogy, seeing molecular motors. These have one to one correlations to man made motors.

So, I think the links that I provided earlier, falsify Darwins theory.
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species..." and in these cases totally different species.


God Bless!
And good night.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet Black,
The organisms do live in symbiosis with each other, but there are parts of their strutures that perform an exclusive role in the survival of the other organism.
Darwins test:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species..."

Evolutionists are sounding more and more like Young Earth Creationists. Nothing any of you say can be falsified.

God Bless!

but that is because it relies on the other organism in some way. so realyl the structires in these organisms are for their own benefit, because they get something back from the other organism... see?

 

[David Gould]

I think that if you examine Darwin's statement you will see another problem with the supposed falsification.

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species..."

The phrase I am interested in here is 'had been formed for the exclusive good of another species.'

In other words, it is not relevant that the structure currently provides and exclusive good for another species. The question is: "What did if form for?"

If it can be demonstrated that it cannot have had an original purpose other than being for the exclusive good of another species then natural selection is falsified.

Or if it is demonstrated to be incredibly unlikely then natural selection would be close to being falsified.

 

[DayAge]

Gould said,
"Why does someone have to be first? Think about gradual change over time."

Quote:

Now, if you could show that the host of a parasite has developed a structure that provides it with no benefit but benefits the parasite then you would have something.
Did you read the articles? Each is providing the other something it does not need.

God Bless!

"They do not need them now. Originally, they did.

But they need each other and as such they continue to produce the stuff that the other needs. If they did not, they would lose the benefits gained."

Show there gradual change.
Nature:
"At least 85% of today's plants depend on mycorrhizae. But unlike the dramatic nodules induced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria, the only sign of symbiosis is a slight alteration of a plant's root hairs, which may be why this important process has been little studied."
Nature:
"Over the past few years evidence has been growing that these vast, threadlike networks of micro-tubes that either penetrate or ensheath plant roots are, in fact, vital to plant life. They bring in distant nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, and act as inter-plant carbon conduits all in return for a bit of photosynthetically-fixed carbon."

This could be the chicken or the egg (which came first?). If one came first it is exclusive. If they happened at the same time it sounds like a smart Creator.

Now! For real. Good night and God Bless!

 

[Jet Black]

vital to modern plants, yes. not nescessarily primitive ones. for example, a heart is vital to human life, but not for a worm.

 

[lucaspa]

It is called symbiosis and there is a lot of it:
1) plant-microbe
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020624/020624-7.html
2) plant-fungus
http://www.nature.com/nsu/981112/981112-3.html
3) fungus-termites
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/23/14887?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&fulltext=symbiosis&searchid=1066627247382_4556&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance
4) hydrothermal vents and symbiosis
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/17/9962?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&fulltext=symbiosis+ants&searchid=1066627811099_4599&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance
5) see "ants, plants, and antibiotics", Nature, 398 (1999)
6) etc.

Symbiosis doesn't work because the feature is not for the exclusive good of the other species. Because the symbiotic relationship itself benefits both organisms. Therefore, any feature benefiting the symbiotic organism also benefits the first organism.

What you would need would be a gland in a cow producing nourishing liquid for a horse but the liquid doesn't nourish a calf.

 

[lucaspa]

"Science is not always falsifiable. Some hypotheses or theories are not falsifiable."

Please name some.

No Boundary comes immediately to mind.
Bubble universe, multiverse, quantumly split universes.

' "Always was" has been falsified. There are currently 5 hypotheses for First Cause."

How do you define the ultimate system? One can always hypothesize a larger system that contains it that always was.

That's an ad hoc hypothesis. We are talking about this universe. This universe has not always existed. Also, because of the singularity that started this universe, there is no way for anything that was "before" to have influenced this one. So, "always was" is falsified.

The closest hypothesis to "always was" among the 5 is No Boundary. In this case the universe doesn't really have a singularity at the BB, but simply IS. Finite but unbounded.

>Some claims of evolution and cosmology are metaphysical or historical, some scientific.<

The claims that arise from lab experiments and direct observation are "scientific." The rest are either metaphysics or history.

I asked which claims specifically. Since as far as I can see, all the claims properly belonging to evolution and cosmology do arise from observation, they are all scientific.

 

[lucaspa]

Jet Black,
The organisms do live in symbiosis with each other, but there are parts of their strutures that perform an exclusive role in the survival of the other organism.
Darwins test:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species..."

But since the survival of the other organism is necessary for the survival of the symbiot, it's not for the exclusive good of the other organism, but also for the survival of the symbiot.

I appreciate the attempt, but you are forgetting that a symbiotic relationship is such that the survival of each organism is dependent on the survival of the other. Thus any feature of the symbiotic organism has to benefit both.

Humans have engineered some plants such that they fit the definition. For instance, the production of seedless fruit is for the exclusive benefit of humans. The plant gets nothing out of it. But these didn't come about thru natural selection.

 

[lucaspa]

Someone had to be first. That would make it exclusive.

But symbiosis wouldn't evolve that way. It would evolve from parasitism where the parasite is using something that the host also needs. To form the symbiotic relationship, the symbiote then helps the host by producing something it needs so that the host can continue to provide the parasite (now symbiote) with what it needs. This obviates the "exclusive". The parasite is already gaining benefit from the host. It is just increasing that benefit.

Now, if you could show that the host of a parasite has developed a structure that provides it with no benefit but benefits the parasite then you would have something.

Did you read the articles? Each is providing the other something it does not need.

Yes, we did. But in each case the former parasite also first was gaining something from the host that both the host and parasite needed.

 

[lucaspa]

Clarification for above:
Each is providing the other something it (itself) does not need.

What Darwin said, is the issue. It is the one lucaspa brought up and the one I am talking about. If you want a different issue just say so.

Same issue. The symbiotes already have something each needs: survival. So, producing for the other organism is not for the exclusive good of the other organism since the other organisms survival is necessary for the survival of the first organism.

It is that necessity to keep the other organism alive so that you can stay alive that you are missing. The producing organism does indeed gain something it really needs: survival.

 

[Jet Black]

I have thought that this falsification wouldn'T really be so disasterous... say two organisms a and b have a symbiotic relationship, and a develops some feature that benefits b. Say a then goes on to develop a method of doing whatever b did for it, that is better than the way b does it, then it would no longer need b, and it would look a bit like a had something that exclusively benefitted b. I know it is pretty unlikely, and there would probably be traces of the old relationship though.

 

[lucaspa]

But they need each other and as such they continue to produce the stuff that the other needs. If they did not, they would lose the benefits gained."

Show there gradual change.
Nature:
"At least 85% of today's plants depend on mycorrhizae. But unlike the dramatic nodules induced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria, the only sign of symbiosis is a slight alteration of a plant's root hairs, which may be why this important process has been little studied."
Nature:
"Over the past few years evidence has been growing that these vast, threadlike networks of micro-tubes that either penetrate or ensheath plant roots are, in fact, vital to plant life. They bring in distant nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, and act as inter-plant carbon conduits all in return for a bit of photosynthetically-fixed carbon."

This could be the chicken or the egg (which came first?). If one came first it is exclusive. If they happened at the same time it sounds like a smart Creator.

Did you notice that "all in return for a bit of photosynthetically-fixed carbon."? There is your loss of exclusivity.

What came first was parasitism by the bacteria who were taking nutrients from the plants. But that was killing the plants, which in turn cost the bacteria their food source. So, to keep the plants alive longer and provide extra nutrients for the plants (allowing them to make the extra food that the bacteria could now get), any bacteria that had a variation that could help the plants would be selected. In this case, it was nitrogen fixation. Another variation that formed the networks would also be created. Not only does it allow healthier plants, but it allows the bacterial colony to access more plants for that "bit of photosyntheticall-fixed carbon". More food, IOW. Benefit to the bacteria. Not an exclusive benefit to the plants.

 

[lucaspa]

I have thought that this falsification wouldn'T really be so disasterous... say two organisms a and b have a symbiotic relationship, and a develops some feature that benefits b. Say a then goes on to develop a method of doing whatever b did for it, that is better than the way b does it, then it would no longer need b, and it would look a bit like a had something that exclusively benefitted b. I know it is pretty unlikely, and there would probably be traces of the old relationship though.

Possibly, although none of the examples Davy gave us were like this.

However, I'm not sure this would be selected. Whatever method A comes up with, it is going to cost more energy than simply getting it from B. Remember, for each new feature there is a cost. In this case, I doubt the cost-benefit ratio would make the new variation in A selectively advantageous. The original A could outcompete by having the same benefit but lower costs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Science is taking an idea (wild or otherwise) and then purposefully trying to find evidence to show it to be wrong.

What you describe sounds more like the scientific method. The word science in the Bible is also translated knowledge, at least in the book of Daniel1:4: "God gave them knowledge H4093 and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams".

04093 // edm // madda` // mad-daw' // or
// edm // madda` // mad-dah' //

from 03045 ; TWOT - 848g; n m

AV - knowledge 4, thought 1, science 1; 6

1) knowledge, thought
1a) knowledge
1b) mind, thought, place of knowledge

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.