Do you agree with these statements?

[klutedavid]

Why is that?

If the kinds of small changes I describe take place over a long enough period of time, isn't it possible that all those small changes will add up to result in a large change from the original population?

Are you proposing that a Zebra could venture back into the ocean by small changes. Then through these small changes, end up being a blue whale?

 

[Kylie]

No, let's not. Philosophy has something to say, and for the religious person, theology has something to say as well.

Yet this is not a thread about philosophy, nor is it a thread about theology.

Is there any evidence to show that such extrapolation is justified?

There are, after all, scientists who believe that, scientifically, there's more to the story.

And yet I'm not aware of any scientists (in relevant fields) who claim that the basic process I described does NOT occur. I never claimed that the process I described was the ONLY selective mechanism.

Personally, I'm a theistic evolutionist, but I think it's fair to say that evolutionary theorists haven't built quite the same kind of robust case that the quantum physicists have built.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, who said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, would disagree with you. As a geneticist, I think it's safe to say he knew what he was talking about. The vast majority (97%) of the scientific community also supports evolution. And Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology. (source)

I think it's safe to say that the case for evolution is quite solid.

 

[Radagast]

Yet this is not a thread about philosophy, nor is it a thread about theology.

But the philosophy of science is surely relevant.

And yet I'm not aware of any scientists (in relevant fields) who claim that the basic process I described does NOT occur.

Nobody denies that basic process; that was my point.

It is on extrapolating the process that you start to lose people.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, who said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, would disagree with you.

The people who taught me biology at university all echoed what Dobzhansky said, in fact.

And Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science

I accept theistic evolution myself, but I wouldn't say that. The level of proof for evolution does not even begin to approach the level of proof that exists for say, quantum physics. The evidence is exceedingly thin on the ground for specific aspects, such as phylogenesis.

And strong cases can be made for e.g. the theories of Stuart Kauffman, who claims that additional scientific principles are necessary to make evolution work.

 

[Radagast]

He was a baptised Lutheran...

So he was baptised in infancy. How does that contradict the fact that he was agnostic?

 

[Tone]

Yet this is not a thread about philosophy, nor is it a thread about theology.



And yet I'm not aware of any scientists (in relevant fields) who claim that the basic process I described does NOT occur. I never claimed that the process I described was the ONLY selective mechanism.



Theodosius Dobzhansky, who said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, would disagree with you. As a geneticist, I think it's safe to say he knew what he was talking about. The vast majority (97%) of the scientific community also supports evolution. And Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology. (source)

I think it's safe to say that the case for evolution is quite solid.

Convention doesn't make anything true.

 

[Kylie]

Are you proposing that a Zebra could venture back into the ocean by small changes. Then through these small changes, end up being a blue whale?

No, it would not be a blue whale. A modern animal can't evolve into a different modern animal. If you think that's how evolution works, you have been misinformed.

But it is perfectly conceivable that a population of zebras could start living a more and more aquatic lifestyle over many many generations and become more and more whale-like. They technically wouldn't be true whales, but they could certainly evolve whale-like features.

 

[Kylie]

But the philosophy of science is surely relevant.

I'd rather discuss evolution than the philosophy of science in this thread.

Nobody denies that basic process; that was my point.

It is on extrapolating the process that you start to lose people.

And why should we not extrapolate?

I mean, we can talk about how we can take a step or two, and no one has a problem with extrapolating that to saying a person can walk across the entire country if they so desired.

The people who taught me biology at university all echoed what Dobzhansky said, in fact.

So why do you disagree with them?

I accept theistic evolution myself, but I wouldn't say that. The level of proof for evolution does not even begin to approach the level of proof that exists for say, quantum physics. The evidence is exceedingly thin on the ground for specific aspects, such as phylogenesis.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges there. Quantum mechanics can be described in a purely mathematical language. Trying to do the same with biological systems is almost impossible due to the huge number of variables that must be accounted for.

And strong cases can be made for e.g. the theories of Stuart Kauffman, who claims that additional scientific principles are necessary to make evolution work.

Not familiar with his work, and what I saw of it on his Wikipedia article seems very in depth, and far beyond my expertise, so I can't comment on that. In any case, I would ask if his ideas claim that the process I described does not work as described.

 

[Kylie]

Convention doesn't make anything true.

Were you under the impression I was invoking argument from popularity?

 

[klutedavid]

No, it would not be a blue whale. A modern animal can't evolve into a different modern animal. If you think that's how evolution works, you have been misinformed.

But it is perfectly conceivable that a population of zebras could start living a more and more aquatic lifestyle over many many generations and become more and more whale-like. They technically wouldn't be true whales, but they could certainly evolve whale-like features.

I struggle with the concept, that a tetrapod, a Zebra, could become an aquatic animal. That somehow it's legs would get shorter and shorter, then the hoofs would change into fins.

The zebra would develop a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control. The nasal intake would gradually shift over millions of years, up onto the top of the skull to become a blowhole.

The Zebra eyes would morph into underwater eyes. Slowly over millions of years.

Then the Zebra would acquire a taste for seawater, I don't need freshwater anymore.

A massive restructure of the skeleton of the Zebra.

Ability to nurse young underwater.

Call me an evolution atheist if you like. I lack the belief that a Zebra could become a whale.

 

[Radagast]

I'd rather discuss evolution than the philosophy of science in this thread.

How can you separate them? As soon as you say "XYZ has been proved," you bring philosophy into it.

And why should we not extrapolate?

Because extrapolation is a notoriously risky business.

I mean, we can talk about how we can take a step or two, and no one has a problem with extrapolating that to saying a person can walk across the entire country if they so desired.

Like you, I am an Australian. I'm pretty sure that if I tried to walk across the entire country, I would die of thirst. It's hot, it's dry, and there's precious little water to be found.

That was actually a perfect example of how extrapolation can fail.

So why do you disagree with them?

Did I say that I did?

I think you are comparing apples to oranges there. Quantum mechanics can be described in a purely mathematical language. Trying to do the same with biological systems is almost impossible due to the huge number of variables that must be accounted for.

I would say that, if you can't express things in mathematical language, you don't fully understand them yet.

In principle, it should be possible to mathematically determine what evolution can and cannot do (bringing in population genetics, information theory, and other topics). Nobody is close to that yet.

Not familiar with his work, and what I saw of it on his Wikipedia article seems very in depth, and far beyond my expertise, so I can't comment on that. In any case, I would ask if his ideas claim that the process I described does not work as described.

Nobody denies that basic process; that was my point.

Kauffman would argue that, to go beyond your simple zebra scenario, additional principles are needed.

Experiments in computer simulation of evolution lend a degree of support to his theories. Your zebra scenario can very easily be demonstrated in a computer simulation model; more complex scenarios run into trouble, even if we simulate millions of generations.

 

[Shemjaza]

I struggle with the concept, that a tetrapod, a Zebra, could become an aquatic animal. That somehow it's legs would get shorter and shorter, then the hoofs would change into fins.

The zebra would develop a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control. The nasal intake would gradually shift over millions of years, up onto the top of the skull to become a blowhole.

The Zebra eyes would morph into underwater eyes. Slowly over millions of years.

Then the Zebra would acquire a taste for seawater, I don't need freshwater anymore.

A massive restructure of the skeleton of the Zebra.

Ability to nurse young underwater.

Call me an evolution atheist if you like. I lack the belief that a Zebra could become a whale.

It's pretty unlikely for any developed land animal to become a sea creature, but the evidence indicated that is has happened a number of times.

Also, basically every step you described from zebra to whale exists in other animals... so each step is clearly functional and viable.

 

[Shemjaza]

So in the case of Germany you don't think the fittest were defeated?

Applying terms like "fittest" to political structures and nation states gives a false idea of absolute likelihood of success.

But Nazi Germany had a great many disadvantages that were basically inevitably going to lead to their downfall in some manner.

@Shemjaza

lol I'm still trying to figure out how the convo got on the Israel and WWII.

I will agree with Carl on Israel etc. If you look at battles, and wars etc. Israel was way way out numbered compared to Germany. Most of the time, on the Western front Germany was facing a 5:1 ratio against them on the ground, while Israel on the other hand was facing something like a 30:1 disadvantage in some of their battles. Israel was in a position where they had to do everything right, as well as have some luck / divine intervention, plus have lots of and lots of aid from the US.. to survive.

But the 30 to 1, ratio is very impressive. It is very hard defending something like a well built fortress with those kind of odds let alone a field of sand dunes.... which is what Israel managed to do.

Using sand dunes and fortresses as a description of Israel in the Six Days War makes them sound passive... they were anything but. They were extremely well informed, excellently trained, disciplined and totally ruthless.

Israel's enemies had them outnumbered, but they were never outclassed.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So he was baptised in infancy. How does that contradict the fact that he was agnostic?

To be fair I don't think it does...

 

[Carl Emerson]

To reiterate my position then, I don't believe the most 'evolved' always survive. I think there are other unmeasurable forces that determine outcomes that act through nature or even independent of it.

 

[Shemjaza]

To reiterate my position then, I don't believe the most 'evolved' always survive. I think there are other unmeasurable forces that determine outcomes that act through nature or even independent of it.

I don't think anyone disagrees.

Evolutionary fitness has always only represented a statistical advantage. The unlikely is still possible.

 

[Radagast]

I think there are other unmeasurable forces that determine outcomes that act through nature or even independent of it.

That much, if I understand you correctly, is a statement every Christian has to agree with.

Even Stuart Kauffman would probably agree to a statement quite close to that (deleting the word "unmeasurable").

And perhaps even Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would agree: "One, probability is a factor which operates within natural forces. Two, probability is not operating as a factor. Three, we are now held within un-, sub- or supernatural forces. Discuss."

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

I do agree.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Suprisingly, that is not true. We still have creationists in this forum who deny the formation of new species. See the next post.

Unfortunately, yes. I think it's because Genesis says that creatures reproduce after their kinds, and people often confuse that with species.

 

[Shemjaza]

Unfortunately, yes. I think it's because Genesis says that creatures reproduce after their kinds, and people often confuse that with species.

The problem with kinds is that they are arbitrary and undefinable.

There is no objective measure or definition of kind or kind barrier.

People are often happy with a " great cat kind" or even a "cat kind", possibly even an "ape kind" just as long as humans don't count as part of a group with any other animals.

In reality humans and chimps are closer related to each other genetically then either is to a gorilla.

 

[klutedavid]

The problem with kinds is that they are arbitrary and undefinable.

There is no objective measure or definition of kind or kind barrier.

People are often happy with a " great cat kind" or even a "cat kind", possibly even an "ape kind" just as long as humans don't count as part of a group with any other animals.

In reality humans and chimps are closer related to each other genetically then either is to a gorilla.

If you can define 'species', then perhaps we won't get confused.