Ever changing science.

[Rize]

Originally posted by notto
Rize,

Do you understand why they pick certain animals over others for medical reasearch?

They pick animal subjects that best represent humans for the test concerned.  They use seem to use a lot of rats...

Genetic similarity is probably one basis.  You'll never demonstrate that it was the evolutionary similarity rather than the genetic similarity that was the reason for the choice.  Or if it is, you won't show that the same conclusion could be drawn from the genetic evidence (which corresponds to the physiological evidence that is partly used to "trace" paths of evolution).

In other words, I have some idea of how the pick the animals, and I don't believe it is reliant on evolution.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Freodin
Can´t leave it, heh, Rize?

Evolution has the same relevance for our search for knowledge as any other field in science.

A few hundred years ago, research into the topic of "cold" was regarded as useless - at most a thing of some entertainment value.
Yet people kept on doing it, out of pure curiosity.

And as the bits and pieces unfolded, it was discovered that it was in fact usefull - so usefull that our whole modern society is based on this topic.

Conclusion: there is no such thing as useless knowledge.

Right.  But evolution isn't knowledge, it's a theory of the past based on knowledge.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Rize
The first criticism remains valid.  It doesn't matter how repeatable the "mechanism" of evolution is, what is not repeatable is the scale in which it takes place.  You can empirically verify and examine the salting of another slug, but you cannot spend millions years observing ape-like creature evolve into homonids again.

You are sort of right about that. Not that it matters - the important thing is the mechanism. What it explains (the diversity of life, and the observed changes in life over geological time) is far less important. Yet, those observations do keep coming in and we do continue checking theory against fact.

The second criticism remains valid as well.  While it's true that evolutionary thinking may have spurred the study of genes, this does not make it relevant.  It might have been incidentally helpful, but that does not make it correct.

Its supposed irrelevance to practical application does not make it incorrect, or any less a proper explanation than the same does to relativity. 

Relativity may not have real world application, but it is empirically verifiable and thus worth of using (and as you described your self, relativity may very well have practical use in the future).

You are jumping back and forth on your criticism. If "no current real world application" is true of evolution, and if it is a valid criticism, then the same would apply to relativity. But no one complains. By the way, relativity is not the only theory under discussion in this thread that is empirically verifiable, and not the only one that may have larger practical impact in the long run than it currently does. 

However, evolution is merely a theory of origins.

Not by a long shot. It is a theory of changing populations in the present, and an explanation for the changes in life over geologic time, besides explaining the "origin" of the diversity of life that we observe today.

What is important to science is how things work now.

The same processes that brought about the current diversity of life from a common ancestor are still at work today - and it is those processes that are important. The modern synthesis of evolution is a theory that explains those processes.

I don't argue with the study of evolution as a curiosity though.

Curiosity is one of humanity's greatest gifts. Without people studying science to satisfy curiosity, many great technological advances would never have materialized.

And, assuming it's true, it could possibly have some affect on medicine... but don't try them out on me.  I'd hate to have some "vestigial" organ removed and find out later what it was good for.

What if it was your appendix, and it was inflamed? Would "what it is good for" keep you alive when it ruptured?

Or what if it was one of those atavistic tails? Would you want to keep it and show off to your girlfriends how much better you could climb a tree?

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You are sort of right about that. Not that it matters - the important thing is the mechanism. What it explains (the diversity of life, and the observed changes in life over geological time) is far less important. Yet, those observations do keep coming in and we do continue checking theory against fact.

 

The observed mechanism exists, the question is whether it is responsible for large scale evolution (since I can't use the term "macro" anymore  )

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Its supposed irrelevance to practical application does not make it incorrect, or any less a proper explanation than the same does to relativity.

  

Exactly my point.  It's irrelevence or incidental relevence (since it is questionable to me) has no bearing on the correctness of the theory.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You are jumping back and forth on your criticism. If "no current real world application" is true of evolution, and if it is a valid criticism, then the same would apply to relativity. But no one complains. By the way, relativity is not the only theory under discussion in this thread that is empirically verifiable, and not the only one that may have larger practical impact in the long run than it currently does.

  

No, you are not taking my entire thoughts into account.  I'm saying that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Relativity is empirically verified and may be physically useful.  Large scale evolution is not empirically verified and is not physically useful.  It merely tries to explain things.  What good is it to laymen other than as a tool to shape their thinking?  Yet they learn it as a child and then it changes dramatically over the course of their lives.  I'm not saying there's a better way to do things... but that doesn't make this a good way.

Now... Did you have to break my measily 4th paragraph into 4 separate quotes so that this can blow up into another giant quote fest?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Not by a long shot. It is a theory of changing populations in the present, and an explanation for the changes in life over geologic time, besides explaining the "origin" of the diversity of life that we observe today.

 

In other words, it's a theory of origins after you remove "changing populations in the present" (do I have to say "large scale evolution" every time?).  How many times do I have to tell you that I don't dispute speciation?  This is why I gave up the other argument.  Speciation is used in argument for evolution, but (as it's defined) it is an independant and verifiable observation.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The same processes that brought about the current diversity of life from a common ancestor are still at work today - and it is those processes that are important. The modern synthesis of evolution is a theory that explains those processes.

 

Processes are at work today, that they brought about the current diversity of life is theory (evolution).  That they've contributed to the current diversity of life is fact.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Curiosity is one of humanity's greatest gifts. Without people studying science to satisfy curiosity, many great technological advances would never have materialized.

 

Curiosity about the past may have indirectly resulted in present benefits, but curiosity about the present is probably (no assumptions here) a lot more productive.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
What if it was your appendix, and it was inflamed? Would "what it is good for" keep you alive when it ruptured?

That's quite a different story.  What if it was curable and doctors decided that removing it would be cheaper/easier than curing it? 

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Or what if it was one of those atavistic tails? Would you want to keep it and show off to your girlfriends how much better you could climb a tree?

lol.  I'd love to see a picture!  Not to mention here the guys at AiG talk about it   Other than that, no comment.

 

[Lacmeh]

Um; Rize, you know about this little thing, called antibiotica? You know, this stuff that´s supposed to kill bacteria?
The mechanism of mutation and natural selection at work here. Or do you beleive, that God creates antibiotica resistent strains of bacteria?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rize
You can empirically verify and examine the salting of another slug, but you cannot spend millions years observing ape-like creature evolve into homonids again.

I have never understood this argument, especially since you can apply it to discount anything historical. By the same logic, the Bible must be false, since I can't directly witness all the events portrayed in it.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Um; Rize, you know about this little thing, called antibiotica? You know, this stuff that´s supposed to kill bacteria?
The mechanism of mutation and natural selection at work here. Or do you beleive, that God creates antibiotica resistent strains of bacteria?

  

Creationists don't dispute speciation.

I almost typed evolution.. that would have been interesting

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that antibiotic resistance isn't due to a dramatic increase in genetic information, but rather shifting and degradation of information.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I have never understood this argument, especially since you can apply it to discount anything historical. By the same logic, the Bible must be false, since I can't directly witness all the events portrayed in it.

No, by the same logic anything historical is suspect.

Of course, many Christian's have non-historical reasons for believing in the Bible.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rize
No, by the same logic anything historical is suspect.

Whichever. The point is, it's not a very compelling argument, especially in light of the historical evidence.

Of course, many Christian's have non-historical reasons for believing in the Bible.

Likewise, the same applies to evolutionists.

 

[Lacmeh]

Rize, you should educate yourself on that subject then.
Antibiotica are, like anything else in the organic world digestable. You only need to find the right kind of bacteria. For every antibiotica, there are bacteria, which can digest or have the potential. The information on how to properly digest antibiotica, which arenßt different from other organic material, is based in plasmids., I think it is called. Not in the cell heart. (For lack of a better term). These plasmids can be transferred to other bacteria, even if the species is different. Therefore, additional information goes to a certain species. Of course, not all bacteria of a given species have the same plasmids. Some have more, some less. When the humans attack with antibiotica, natural selection occurs. Those, with the correct information how to digest the stuff live, the rest dies. That can be a bacteria with many or with few plasmids. The total amount of information inherent in the bacteria doesn´t matter. Chances for a bacteria, which has stored away the past information (against past antibiotica) and the current information (against the now applied antibioticum) are highest. Wether it has stored away other information about other stuff to digest does currently not matter.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Whichever. The point is, it's not a very compelling argument, especially in light of the historical evidence.

It's not meant to be a compelling argument, but something to think about.  Non repeatable (historical) science is not the same as observational science.

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Likewise, the same applies to evolutionists.

Point.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Lacmeh
Rize, you should educate yourself on that subject then.
Antibiotica are, like anything else in the organic world digestable. You only need to find the right kind of bacteria. For every antibiotica, there are bacteria, which can digest or have the potential. The information on how to properly digest antibiotica, which arenßt different from other organic material, is based in plasmids., I think it is called. Not in the cell heart. (For lack of a better term). These plasmids can be transferred to other bacteria, even if the species is different. Therefore, additional information goes to a certain species. Of course, not all bacteria of a given species have the same plasmids. Some have more, some less. When the humans attack with antibiotica, natural selection occurs. Those, with the correct information how to digest the stuff live, the rest dies. That can be a bacteria with many or with few plasmids. The total amount of information inherent in the bacteria doesn´t matter. Chances for a bacteria, which has stored away the past information (against past antibiotica) and the current information (against the now applied antibioticum) are highest. Wether it has stored away other information about other stuff to digest does currently not matter.

Creationists don't dispute natural selection.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Rize
The observed mechanism exists, the question is whether it is responsible for large scale evolution (since I can't use the term "macro" anymore  )

Well, something is responsible for it - or more precisely, something is responsible for the large-scale changes in the morphology of organisms found in the fossil record over geological time.

  

Exactly my point.  It's irrelevence or incidental relevence (since it is questionable to me) has no bearing on the correctness of the theory.

  

No, you are not taking my entire thoughts into account.  I'm saying that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Relativity is empirically verified and may be physically useful.  Large scale evolution is not empirically verified and is not physically useful.  It merely tries to explain things.  What good is it to laymen other than as a tool to shape their thinking?  Yet they learn it as a child and then it changes dramatically over the course of their lives.  I'm not saying there's a better way to do things... but that doesn't make this a good way.

Common descent (the term you are looking for, I believe) is empirically observed in the fossil record, and in the tell-tale signs it left in modern organisms' genotypes and phenotypes. It is merely not directly observed. Relativity is also not directly observed. It can only be verified by observing the effects it has on light waves & such. The difference of "historical" vs "non-historical" is a trifling one.

Now, you admit that the debated practicality of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Why then, did you bring it up? You correctly note that relativity, while probably not useful for anything now may have impact on future technological discoveries, but you offer no reason why the same cannot be said for evolution? Who knows what the future holds? 

Now... Did you have to break my measily 4th paragraph into 4 separate quotes so that this can blow up into another giant quote fest?

Sorry. The train of thought moves along, and if I am to follow it, I have to make you aware of what I am responding to. I do try to minimize that when replying to you because you expressed discontent about it - I couldn't find a way around it in this post...How else could I have replied separately to the argument that relativity is "empirically verified" and the argument that relativity "may have future use", when your comments about them were part of a compound sentence? 

 

In other words, it's a theory of origins after you remove "changing populations in the present" (do I have to say "large scale evolution" every time?).  How many times do I have to tell you that I don't dispute speciation?  This is why I gave up the other argument.  Speciation is used in argument for evolution, but (as it's defined) it is an independant and verifiable observation.

You can say "common descent". I think that is the main problem you have with evolution. Speciation guarantees "large scale evolution" over long periods of time. After species diverge, small-scale changes become cumulative (they are not mixed back into the common gene pool). After several speciations, the differences between the most distant descendants on either line are going to be remarkable. Yes, speciation is an independent and verifiable observation. So is natural selection. And, less directly, so is common descent.
 

Processes are at work today, that they brought about the current diversity of life is theory (evolution).  That they've contributed to the current diversity of life is fact.

Correct. There may be undiscovered processes in evolution that have also contributed, and mechanisms apart from natural selection are hotly debated among scientists now. 

 

lol.  I'd love to see a picture!  Not to mention here the guys at AiG talk about it   Other than that, no comment.

Happy to oblige:

(Thanks to Neo for the link to news article)

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

I actually e-mailed AiG about it. They replied - explaining pseudo-tails from a creationist perspective. I replied, reminding them that pseudo-tails were not the subject of my question, and asking them about their position on true atavistic tails. They replied with a few links and no explanation. I still have the e-mail exchange, but will not reproduce it because I do not believe AiG allows that.

There is a thread here asking for creationists to weigh in on atavistic tails:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/28690-1.html

You may get a kick out of it. There are pages & pages of nothing but people commenting on how quiet the creationists had gotten - then finally a creationist explained them as a result of us being vertebrates, and God having to give us genes for a tail to keep from breaking any of his systematic rules.

 

[Lacmeh]

Rize, this is more than natural selection.
It is clearly proven, that gene transfer between species happens.
It is clearly proven, that for natural selection, the total amount of information need not rise.

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, back in the bad old witch-burning days, what do you think would have happened to a baby and her mother when she was born with an atavistic tail? There's you a practical application for the theory of evolution...

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Well, something is responsible for it - or more precisely, something is responsible for the large-scale changes in the morphology of organisms found in the fossil record over geological time. 

 

I suppose we can agree on something then.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Common descent (the term you are looking for, I believe) is empirically observed in the fossil record, and in the tell-tale signs it left in modern organisms' genotypes and phenotypes. It is merely not directly observed. Relativity is also not directly observed. It can only be verified by observing the effects it has on light waves & such. The difference of "historical" vs "non-historical" is a trifling one.

Now, you admit that the debated practicality of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is correct or not. Why then, did you bring it up? You correctly note that relativity, while probably not useful for anything now may have impact on future technological discoveries, but you offer no reason why the same cannot be said for evolution? Who knows what the future holds? 

Relativity can be tested in many ways and it has (and it's suceeded).  Evolution is like goo compared to relativity.  Sure the evidence "verifies" evolution, except it's changed so much.  It is historical in nature and not directly observed.  Relativity is empirical in nature and not directly observed.  Sorry if I'm having trouble defining things, but there is a difference. 

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Sorry. The train of thought moves along, and if I am to follow it, I have to make you aware of what I am responding to. I do try to minimize that when replying to you because you expressed discontent about it - I couldn't find a way around it in this post...How else could I have replied separately to the argument that relativity is "empirically verified" and the argument that relativity "may have future use", when your comments about them were part of a compound sentence?  

  

Comment about them in a single paragraph and reexamine them as a single thought rather than separate arguments.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You can say "common descent". I think that is the main problem you have with evolution. Speciation guarantees "large scale evolution" over long periods of time. After species diverge, small-scale changes become cumulative (they are not mixed back into the common gene pool). After several speciations, the differences between the most distant descendants on either line are going to be remarkable. Yes, speciation is an independent and verifiable observation. So is natural selection. And, less directly, so is common descent. 

  
 
Speciation does not guarantee "large scale evolution" over time.  It guarantees large scale speciation over time.  That "the differences are going to be remarkable" is merely an assumption (by remarkable, I assume you mean things will grow wings and eyes and such ).  You assume that there is a large time scale to work with as well. 

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Correct. There may be undiscovered processes in evolution that have also contributed, and mechanisms apart from natural selection are hotly debated among scientists now. 

   

Or there may not be and common descent (thanks) may not be a reality.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Happy to oblige:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_492558.html

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

I actually e-mailed AiG about it. They replied - explaining pseudo-tails from a creationist perspective. I replied, reminding them that pseudo-tails were not the subject of my question, and asking them about their position on true atavistic tails. They replied with a few links and no explanation. I still have the e-mail exchange, but will not reproduce it because I do not believe AiG allows that.

There is a thread here asking for creationists to weigh in on atavistic tails:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/28690-1.html

You may get a kick out of it. There are pages & pages of nothing but people commenting on how quiet the creationists had gotten - then finally a creationist explained them as a result of us being vertebrates, and God having to give us genes for a tail to keep from breaking any of his systematic rules.

Nice.  So the 3 coccyx vertebrae are enlarged and not fused?  It looks like a tail, but perhaps it is merely a pathology?  The "5 vertebrae tail" (figured 2.2.1. talkorigins) is not elaborated on.  Did that one have extra coccyx vertebrae, or were the S5 and S4 vertebrae part of the "tail"?  This is interesting and provides something to talk about, but it doesn't prove anything to me.

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
By the way, back in the bad old witch-burning days, what do you think would have happened to a baby and her mother when she was born with an atavistic tail? There's you a practical application for the theory of evolution...

No, that's a practical application of genetics, x-rays (which reveal simply enlarged/unfused vertebrae) and the increase in knowledge of deformities.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Rize
No, that's a practical application of genetics, x-rays (which reveal simply enlarged/unfused vertebrae) and the increase in knowledge of deformities.

If it isn't a deformity on a doggie or monkey, why do you call it a deformity on a person? X-rays tell you what's inside it, not how it got there. Genetics cannot explain a tail, unless it is already recognized that our genes are the same as all primate genes to a large degree.

These folks, lacking the correct evolutionary explanation, would undoubtedly conclude that a child born with a tail was conceived by a beast (if not The Beast), and would punish mother and child accordingly.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Sorry,

I'll have to come back tonight to reply. I have a billiards game to get to by 3pm & I need a shower. By the way, I have not forgotten the "genetic evidence" post. I have it started, but have gotten distracted by interesting threads on here, and by lots of activity at home. I'll be back on that (hopefully tonight)...

Regards until then.
Jerry

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
If it isn't a deformity on a doggie or monkey, why do you call it a deformity on a person? X-rays tell you what's inside it, not how it got there. Genetics cannot explain a tail, unless it is already recognized that our genes are the same as all primate genes to a large degree.

These folks, lacking the correct evolutionary explanation, would undoubtedly conclude that a child born with a tail was conceived by a beast (if not The Beast), and would punish mother and child accordingly.

Should we have some kind of celebration about the ignorance of past centuries?  Should I help by pointing out the absurdities that used to be good science?

Now, do these tails have muscular control?  What is the nature of tails in apes?  Do they have additional vertebrae or elongated vertebrae?  There are similar structures in various animals.  That tails are esentially extended spinal cords and found in numerous animals does not exclude the possibility of a genetically deformed tail in tail-less vertebraes.  Does it?