How can scientists possibly know ... ?? An open exploration thread

gluadys · Nov 9, 2007

holdon said:
I agree: "advancement" is purely arbitrary. But "evolution" just means that....

No, it doesn't. This is where your assumptions are leading you astray. You think of evolution being something it does not claim to be.

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles across generations. That is a very standard definition. Where does it say anything about advancement?

Natural selection adapts a species to its environment. Again a pretty standard description of what happens. Where does it say anything about advancement?

Mutations are changes in genetic material. Simple definition. Where does it say anything about advancement?

You are tilting at windmills here.

holdon said:
How do you want me to explain your theory of "life radiating into different niches via evolution" if I don't subscribe to that theory? You're positing something that still needs to confirmed.

Shernren is positing a scenario which has been confirmed in nature, in field trials and in laboratories. How much more confirmation do you need? Methinks what you most need is familiarity with the evidence.

holdon said:
Well, opinion is worthless if indeed "the evidence" is portrayed and interpreted because of certain underlying beliefs.

In another thread we discussed what the underlying beliefs of science are. Let me remind you of them.

1. The world is real. There is a real world existing outside our heads which is not a product of our brainwaves or collective unconscious. (For Christians, this is an implication of creation. God really creates a real world that exists independently of us.)

2. The world is lawful. It operates on the basis of regular patterns derived from the fundamental properties of forces and particles. Consequently, it is possible to make reliable predictions about the regular course of natural processes. (For Christians, this is an implication of the rational orderliness of the mind of God which does not create confusion.)

3. The world is intelligible. We have the sensory and intellectual capacity to discern the lawful order in the world. (For Christians, this is an implication of being made in the image of God and given dominion over creation.)

AFAIK there are no other underlying beliefs shared by all scientists. Which do you have a problem with?

Note ,too, that one does not need to be Christian to believe these principles, but also that all of them can be derived from Christian beliefs. So again, why would these underlying beliefs be a problem for interpreting the evidence?

And if these beliefs are not the problem, which "certain underlying beliefs" are?

But when the thing itself is elevated as religious dogma beyond all contest, it doesn't matter anymore what flaws we find, because the belief that it is true exists.

But where and when is this happening? Or is this just more unsubstantiated stereotyping from the rumour mill?

As for "flaws we find" what flaws are you speaking of?

Well, the very word "evolution" means that.

See above.

And show me "a scientist" that doesn't believe that.

Show me one who does.

And why "programmed death"?

It is a term used by embryologists for stages in development that require cells previously formed to die. For example, when the hand and foot are first forming fingers and toes, the digits are linked to each other by webbing, like in a duck's foot. To free up the digits for movement, that webbing needs to disappear, so the program of embryological development includes a stage of cell death to get rid of the webbing. Same goes for the cells that form the temporary tail of a human embryo.

But in all these supposed "examples" you don't know what the "source population" was like.

Well since the genes for developing a tail are there and are expressed in the embryo, even though the tail is later dismantled, we know that at some point the source population had a tail.

Please remember that genes are inherited. If we didn't inherit these genes from some long distant ancestor, where do you think they came from? Why would a designer add them to the genome of a creature designed to be tailless? (Same goes for the genes in birds that could produce teeth, but don't. Experiments show that these genes can be activated and will produce teeth in birds. Fossils also show that ancient birds did have teeth.)

How complex or not it was. It's hypothesis upon hypothesis.

And every hypothesis is derived from evidence and tested against more evidence. Evidence always has the last word.

Because some species apparently never changed.

Key word: apparently. Is not the whole point of science to look beyond superficial appearances? Apparently the sun rises and sets. But what does a more in-depth study show?

But many others are.

Many others are what?

The whole problem with explaining that natural selection makes sure species change constantly is that there is virtually no evidence (to come back to that word) that it wipes out gene information and ensuring new information comes along.

Natural selection does not ensure that new information comes along. It only selects from existing possibilities. But it can make some existing possibilities disappear (or at least become very rare) in future generations. Or it can make a currently rare possibility very common in future generations.

But natural selection can only do this where more than one possibility already exists in the species and where one of them is more or less favorable than the others. Where several possibilities have equal survival value, all continue as variations in the species. Where there is only one possibility, no selection is possible.

Natural selection explains everything, but therefore it explains nothing.

See above for something natural selection does not explain: the production of new genetic information.

Take your example of the pepper moth: apparently not much changed. It was still the same moth before and after, and nobody is to tell what was before and what was after.

History tells us which came first. Also there is a study called "cladistics" that investigates which came first.

You keep reaffirming that your incredulity is based primarily on unfamiliarity with the evidence (not to mention a predispostion in favour of the science being wrong). You keep assuming that there is no way to know many things that are known, that have been observed, for which there are many examples beyond the few in basic textbooks.

So the foundation is still evidence. And much to my delight, more and more of this evidence is finding its way into accessible literature for the scientific layperson like myself.

On this topic, if I can recommend just one book, I suggest The Diversity of Life by E.O. Wilson. It is packed with many, many more examples than the few we have discussed here and explains the concepts quite simply.

If you are not too afraid to expose yourself to the evidence, go to the library and check it out.

(Not necessarily personal, but my experience is that at this point most creationists refuse to continue on because they are really, really afraid of educating themselves outside the box. I always find it ironic that self-proclaimed defenders of creation are so averse to actually examining what has been created.)

holdon · Nov 9, 2007

gluadys said:
No, it doesn't. This is where your assumptions are leading you astray. You think of evolution being something it does not claim to be.

Evolutionism from Merriam Webster 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena [/quote]

Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles across generations. That is a very standard definition. Where does it say anything about advancement?
Natural selection adapts a species to its environment. Again a pretty standard description of what happens. Where does it say anything about advancement?

Mutations are changes in genetic material. Simple definition. Where does it say anything about advancement?

You are tilting at windmills here. [/quote]See MW above.

Shernren is positing a scenario which has been confirmed in nature, in field trials and in laboratories. How much more confirmation do you need? Methinks what you most need is familiarity with the evidence.

I'm surprised you even understand that scenario, because it is quite nebulous: "life radiating in niches via evolution". But where precisely has it been confirmed in nature?

In another thread we discussed what the underlying beliefs of science are. Let me remind you of them.

1. The world is real. There is a real world existing outside our heads which is not a product of our brainwaves or collective unconscious. (For Christians, this is an implication of creation. God really creates a real world that exists independently of us.)

2. The world is lawful. It operates on the basis of regular patterns derived from the fundamental properties of forces and particles. Consequently, it is possible to make reliable predictions about the regular course of natural processes. (For Christians, this is an implication of the rational orderliness of the mind of God which does not create confusion.)

3. The world is intelligible. We have the sensory and intellectual capacity to discern the lawful order in the world. (For Christians, this is an implication of being made in the image of God and given dominion over creation.)

AFAIK there are no other underlying beliefs shared by all scientists. Which do you have a problem with?

This is quite interesting. I don't have a lot of time right now. Perhaps next week. But number 3. Because our capacity it evidently quite limited and that comes about in a whole lot of things: hence the OP "what do scientist know"? [/quote]
Note ,too, that one does not need to be Christian to believe these principles, but also that all of them can be derived from Christian beliefs. So again, why would these underlying beliefs be a problem for interpreting the evidence?

And if these beliefs are not the problem, which "certain underlying beliefs" are? [/quote]The belief that all life sprung out of some soup, etc. : commonly called "evolution".

But where and when is this happening? Or is this just more unsubstantiated stereotyping from the rumour mill?

The reasoning that what has come about must be because of natural selection and mutations.

Show me one who does.

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) [/quote]

Well since the genes for developing a tail are there and are expressed in the embryo, even though the tail is later dismantled, we know that at some point the source population had a tail. [/quote]Crazy reasoning.

Please remember that genes are inherited. If we didn't inherit these genes from some long distant ancestor, where do you think they came from? Why would a designer add them to the genome of a creature designed to be tailless? (Same goes for the genes in birds that could produce teeth, but don't. Experiments show that these genes can be activated and will produce teeth in birds. Fossils also show that ancient birds did have teeth.)

And because of that you conclude that "birds must have descended from species with teeth, or that human predecessors had tails??? What kind of conclusion is that?

And every hypothesis is derived from evidence and tested against more evidence. Evidence always has the last word.

I sure hope so.

Key word: apparently. Is not the whole point of science to look beyond superficial appearances? Apparently the sun rises and sets. But what does a more in-depth study show?

Yes what?

Natural selection does not ensure that new information comes along. It only selects from existing possibilities. But it can make some existing possibilities disappear (or at least become very rare) in future generations. Or it can make a currently rare possibility very common in future generations.

And that's about it.

History tells us which came first. Also there is a study called "cladistics" that investigates which came first.

How would you know whether dark moths existed before or not during the past million years?

Well time will tell about evidence. Sooner or later some new evidence comes out and forces the current paradigm to be changed. Call it evolution. Natural selection in the mean time might produce more creationists than evolutionists, because the latter produce generally more offspring.....

It seems from some evidence in the mean time that hereditary mutations are by no means infinite in quality and number, but that rather complicated control mechanisms exist for the reliable reproduction of DNA, and that variations exists for a large number of gene loci, but that these variations (also called mutations) seem to be not unlimited nor irreversible, although some occur more frequently than others. What "natural selection" does with it is mostly a guess, nor do we see the desired trend of "progress".

shernren · Nov 9, 2007

holdon said:
How do you want me to explain your theory of "life radiating into different niches via evolution" if I don't subscribe to that theory? You're positing something that still needs to confirmed. If you wear red glasses all you will see is things in red. The things themselves don't change, but your opinion of them. So, with this supposed evolution theory: everything is explained in that light, because you think it is thus.
How then do scientists who all wear the same kind of glasses know things? (see OP).

By the evidence of the twin nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy of life was discovered as long ago as Linnaeus, who had never so much as heard of Darwinian evolution. Here's a long article I wrote about it some time back, so I'll just repost it here.

=========

Take a look, however, at life. Suppose I try to create a classification system in which I start by lumping cats and lizards together in a category, and everything else in a different category. How might I justify that? Absolutely no way. (Other than the trivial justification "I said so!") For in what morphological characteristics are cats and lizards more similar to each other than anything else? Are they both tetrapedal? But so are dogs and goannas and dinosaurs and rabbits and people. Do both have jaws? But so do all fish and all mammals. Do they have segmented bodies? (Yes, they do. Your fancy textbook should have something about that under embryonic development.)* So do all the other, uh, animals that have segmented bodies (can't remember the technical name offhand), all the way from whales to worms.

As a matter of fact, the smallest set of all living organisms that would contain both cats and lizards is the set Reptilia inclusive - namely the union of Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia. Let's call this big set Felidasauri. (Heh heh.) [EDIT: The proper name for this taxonomic clade is Diapsida; nevertheless, I preserve the original "name" to show where it came from.] Note some important things about Felidasauri:

1. Every taxonomical set which contains both cats and lizards contains all of Felidasauri. A set which contains, say, cats, lizards, and catfish, is always found within the natural order to contain everything "between" cats and lizards, all of Felidasauri.

2. Even more curiously, any taxonomical set which contains either cats or lizards (not necessarily both) either: is contained completely in Felidasauri, or completely contains Felidasauri. For example, if any set containing cats doesn't contain all of Felidasauri, it doesn't contain anything outside Felidasauri. Once a set containing cats doesn't contain, say, dogs (which are in Felidasauri), it certainly doesn't contain, say, cockroaches (which are outside Felidasauri).

3. Neither of these were logically necessary. Nature could have had it, say, so that cats and cockroaches were really alike in some ways, and cats and lizards were really alike in other ways. As it is, every single morphological trait that a cat shares in common with a cockroach, it also shares in common with a lizard.

Now if you think about it, these are logically necessary features of an evolutionary model.** After all, it makes perfect sense to think of a "clade" (the smallest set of living organisms logically containing a selected few, as described above) as the set of all organisms descended from the last common ancestor (LCA) of that clade. Since the LCA of cats and dogs was itself a descendant of the LCA of cats and lizards, it's clear why everything a cat shares in common with a lizard, it also shares in common with a dog.

However, this is not a logically necessary feature of a creation model, nor does a creation model "explain it" (in any other sense than "God could have done it this way - and He could have done it a gazillion other ways; there would have been no way to predict what He would have done"). For consider: creationists think that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and that neither birds nor dinosaurs shared a common ancestor with cats. Now, that means that instead of the good old "tree of life" there would have been at least three trees: the tree which ended up in dinosaurs (D), the tree which ended up in birds (B), and the tree which ended up in cats (C). None of these trees were evolutionarily related to each other in any way, no gene flow between them or shared ancestors.

Now, if that's the case, shouldn't there be a taxonomical category that can wrap up Dinosaurs and Cats, and leave Birds out? And shouldn't there be a taxonomical category that can wrap up Cats and Birds, and leave Dinosaurs out? After all, the three trees are completely unrelated at their roots; there is no reason for their physical characteristics to be correlated, any more than there is any reason for the stuff scattered around my room to be correlated in the sense of plastic being a descendant of metal being a descendant of wood or anything such. I could chop any two of the trees down and leave myself with a third, no sweat.

However, when we actually study their morphology (without assuming anything about how they evolved, mind you!), it becomes clear that any set which contains both Cats and Dinosaurs must contain Birds, and any set which contains Cats and Birds must also contain Dinosaurs. What strange behavior! If the three were completely separated trees then you should be able to pick and break any that you choose at will; if you cannot break off any two without breaking off the remaining one, what can that mean besides that the three have a uniquely determined LCA? (That, by the way, is not just a rhetorical question, but the single question that creationists cannot answer.)

And to top it all off, this unique morphological tree lines up almost exactly with the tree we obtain from genetic analysis! How does creationism explain that, especially with deleterious traits and non-coding DNA?

Notes:
* This was said to someone who was, if I recall, referring to a biology textbook and not being able to find the twin nested hierarchy anywhere in it. Note that this is merely a statement that animals are segmented. It's a counterintuitive idea to many, but ever seen washboard abs? It turns out that that kind of "segmenting" is present in all embryos of a given clade (which you can directly observe from any embryo you can find) and is controlled by the same genes, hox if I recall correctly, as the ones which produce obvious segmenting in insects etc.
** Obviously, one does not need an evolutionary model to observe that cats are always closer to lizards than to cockroaches whatever measure you take; but the evolutionary model is a model that can explain those observations.

gluadys · Nov 9, 2007

holdon said:
Evolutionism from Merriam Webster 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
See MW above.

First, I expect those defintions are of "evolution" not "evolutionism".
Second, I don't see any reference to "advancement" in the MW definition.

I'm surprised you even understand that scenario, because it is quite nebulous: "life radiating in niches via evolution". But where precisely has it been confirmed in nature?

Not nebulous at all. Check out a glossary on evolutionary terms for "radiation" and "[ecological] niche". These have quite specific meanings.

Hawaii, for one. A classic natural laboratory of evolution.

This is quite interesting. I don't have a lot of time right now. Perhaps next week. But number 3. Because our capacity it evidently quite limited and that comes about in a whole lot of things: hence the OP "what do scientist know"?

Our capacity is limited, but not insufficient. And the name of the thread is "How" scientists know, not "what". We all have a pretty good idea of what science knows, or claims to know, but often we don't know how they came to that knowledge.

The belief that all life sprung out of some soup, etc. : commonly called "evolution".

1. That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
2. It is an hypothesis, not a belief. It is subject to testing against the evidence.

A question for you. If it is found that life did indeed originate in a primordial "soup" would that make it problematical for you to believe in God? If so, why?

The reasoning that what has come about must be because of natural selection and mutations.

At least you called it reasoning this time. What is reasoned out is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion. And again, it is subject to testing against the evidence.

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

Still no reference to advancement.

gluadys said:
gluadys said:

Well since the genes for developing a tail are there and are expressed in the embryo, even though the tail is later dismantled, we know that at some point the source population had a tail.

Click to expand...

Crazy reasoning.

gluadys said:

Please remember that genes are inherited. If we didn't inherit these genes from some long distant ancestor, where do you think they came from? Why would a designer add them to the genome of a creature designed to be tailless? (Same goes for the genes in birds that could produce teeth, but don't. Experiments show that these genes can be activated and will produce teeth in birds. Fossils also show that ancient birds did have teeth.)

Click to expand...

And because of that you conclude that "birds must have descended from species with teeth, or that human predecessors had tails??? What kind of conclusion is that?

Logical.

Yes what?

That the apparent movement of the sun is actually caused by a movement of the earth.
That animals that have apparently not evolved in millions of years have. Just not in ways that are immediately noticeable.

And that's about it.

And it is enough. The whole history of evolution can be explained by the mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection is one of the most important of those mechanisms. Nothing more or extra is needed.

How would you know whether dark moths existed before or not during the past million years?

A million years ago? Geneticists have ways of measuring how long ago a gene or genetic marker originated. Remember that genographic project I mentioned. They have pinned down the approximate time period in which various markers on the Y chromosome originated, going back about 60,000 years. The book explains how they figure this out.

As for the moths, we do know from the records kept by British entomologists, that the black variety was virtually unknown before the late 18th century and when they were first discovered, they were prized for their rarity.

Natural selection in the mean time might produce more creationists than evolutionists, because the latter produce generally more offspring.....

Ah, but memes are not inherited in the same way as genes.

What "natural selection" does with it is mostly a guess,

No, it is not at all a guess. Natural selection favours traits which are adaptive, for as long as they are adaptive, and that effect has been observed and measured. (See The Beak of the Finch for a 20-year investigation of natural selection in the Galapagos ground finches as well as many other examples.) No need to guess at all.

nor do we see the desired trend of "progress".

Which is not a claim made for evolution. Neither the MW definiton, nor the quote from Darwin mentioned any "desired trend of progess". That such "progress" is part of the theory of evolution is a creationist caricature of the theory. Not part of a scientific description of evolution.

USincognito · Nov 10, 2007

Holdon, CF allows infinate editing. Is there any chance you can go back and tighten up your quote tags because they're a few things I'd like to comment on but I'm having a hard time discerning who said what.

holdon said:
Evolutionism from Merriam Webster 4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

As gluadys pointed out, that entry isn't for "evolutionism" but for evolution and entry 4 is entirely correct within a biological context. Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc. No value judgements about "advancement" or even mention of "advancement" is included. Entry 5 is utterly unrelated to biology and neither is Entry 6.

So why did you cite them?

holdon · Nov 11, 2007

shernren said:
By the evidence of the twin nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy of life was discovered as long ago as Linnaeus, who had never so much as heard of Darwinian evolution. Here's a long article I wrote about it some time back, so I'll just repost it here.

=========

Take a look, however, at life. Suppose I try to create a classification system in which I start by lumping cats and lizards together in a category, and everything else in a different category. How might I justify that? Absolutely no way. (Other than the trivial justification "I said so!") For in what morphological characteristics are cats and lizards more similar to each other than anything else? Are they both tetrapedal? But so are dogs and goannas and dinosaurs and rabbits and people. Do both have jaws? But so do all fish and all mammals. Do they have segmented bodies? (Yes, they do. Your fancy textbook should have something about that under embryonic development.)* So do all the other, uh, animals that have segmented bodies (can't remember the technical name offhand), all the way from whales to worms.

As a matter of fact, the smallest set of all living organisms that would contain both cats and lizards is the set Reptilia inclusive - namely the union of Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia. Let's call this big set Felidasauri. (Heh heh.) [EDIT: The proper name for this taxonomic clade is Diapsida; nevertheless, I preserve the original "name" to show where it came from.] Note some important things about Felidasauri:

1. Every taxonomical set which contains both cats and lizards contains all of Felidasauri. A set which contains, say, cats, lizards, and catfish, is always found within the natural order to contain everything "between" cats and lizards, all of Felidasauri.

2. Even more curiously, any taxonomical set which contains either cats or lizards (not necessarily both) either: is contained completely in Felidasauri, or completely contains Felidasauri. For example, if any set containing cats doesn't contain all of Felidasauri, it doesn't contain anything outside Felidasauri. Once a set containing cats doesn't contain, say, dogs (which are in Felidasauri), it certainly doesn't contain, say, cockroaches (which are outside Felidasauri).

3. Neither of these were logically necessary. Nature could have had it, say, so that cats and cockroaches were really alike in some ways, and cats and lizards were really alike in other ways. As it is, every single morphological trait that a cat shares in common with a cockroach, it also shares in common with a lizard.

Now if you think about it, these are logically necessary features of an evolutionary model.** After all, it makes perfect sense to think of a "clade" (the smallest set of living organisms logically containing a selected few, as described above) as the set of all organisms descended from the last common ancestor (LCA) of that clade. Since the LCA of cats and dogs was itself a descendant of the LCA of cats and lizards, it's clear why everything a cat shares in common with a lizard, it also shares in common with a dog.

However, this is not a logically necessary feature of a creation model, nor does a creation model "explain it" (in any other sense than "God could have done it this way - and He could have done it a gazillion other ways; there would have been no way to predict what He would have done"). For consider: creationists think that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and that neither birds nor dinosaurs shared a common ancestor with cats. Now, that means that instead of the good old "tree of life" there would have been at least three trees: the tree which ended up in dinosaurs (D), the tree which ended up in birds (B), and the tree which ended up in cats (C). None of these trees were evolutionarily related to each other in any way, no gene flow between them or shared ancestors.

Now, if that's the case, shouldn't there be a taxonomical category that can wrap up Dinosaurs and Cats, and leave Birds out? And shouldn't there be a taxonomical category that can wrap up Cats and Birds, and leave Dinosaurs out? After all, the three trees are completely unrelated at their roots; there is no reason for their physical characteristics to be correlated, any more than there is any reason for the stuff scattered around my room to be correlated in the sense of plastic being a descendant of metal being a descendant of wood or anything such. I could chop any two of the trees down and leave myself with a third, no sweat.

However, when we actually study their morphology (without assuming anything about how they evolved, mind you!), it becomes clear that any set which contains both Cats and Dinosaurs must contain Birds, and any set which contains Cats and Birds must also contain Dinosaurs. What strange behavior! If the three were completely separated trees then you should be able to pick and break any that you choose at will; if you cannot break off any two without breaking off the remaining one, what can that mean besides that the three have a uniquely determined LCA? (That, by the way, is not just a rhetorical question, but the single question that creationists cannot answer.)

And to top it all off, this unique morphological tree lines up almost exactly with the tree we obtain from genetic analysis! How does creationism explain that, especially with deleterious traits and non-coding DNA?

Notes:
* This was said to someone who was, if I recall, referring to a biology textbook and not being able to find the twin nested hierarchy anywhere in it. Note that this is merely a statement that animals are segmented. It's a counterintuitive idea to many, but ever seen washboard abs? It turns out that that kind of "segmenting" is present in all embryos of a given clade (which you can directly observe from any embryo you can find) and is controlled by the same genes, hox if I recall correctly, as the ones which produce obvious segmenting in insects etc.
** Obviously, one does not need an evolutionary model to observe that cats are always closer to lizards than to cockroaches whatever measure you take; but the evolutionary model is a model that can explain those observations.

Sorry, this is just too much nonsense for me.

holdon · Nov 11, 2007

gluadys said:
I don't see any reference to "advancement" in the MW definition.

a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Our capacity is limited, but not insufficient. And the name of the thread is "How" scientists know, not "what". We all have a pretty good idea of what science knows, or claims to know, but often we don't know how they came to that knowledge.

The "how" is closely related to the "what".

A question for you. If it is found that life did indeed originate in a primordial "soup" would that make it problematical for you to believe in God? If so, why?

Because God is no lousy cook.

Still no reference to advancement.

I guess the second you don't see it: could it be the colored glasses??? "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

Logical.

I'm not impressed then.

And it is enough. The whole history of evolution can be explained by the mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection is one of the most important of those mechanisms. Nothing more or extra is needed.

Of course "natural selection" explains all. Because this is the reasoning: all the life forms that exist today, did undergo "natural selection" which means that only those forms made it that were most fitted over a long period of time, which means that natural selection determined how the life forms came about that we observe today. Challenge: what would have happend if there was no natural selection? Answer: you cannot know, because all we can know is because of natural selection happening.
It's just as stupid as saying: I washed my clothes with detergent and they came out clean, so the detergent must be working.
Well, what happened if I had washed them without detergent (=natural selection). Answer: you cannot know, because all we can know is subject to washing with detergent.
Nobody can answer the question how dirty the clothes were to begin with, or if some other agent(s) had also contributed to the final result.
And nobody can answer the question exactly what source material there was (how dirty it was), nor can anybody say if there could not have been another agent or agents at work that contributed to the final result as we observe it today. You don't know how effective natural selection is in eliminating certain alleles, or making new ones persistant.

A million years ago? Geneticists have ways of measuring how long ago a gene or genetic marker originated.

Please tell me.

Remember that genographic project I mentioned. They have pinned down the approximate time period in which various markers on the Y chromosome originated, going back about 60,000 years. The book explains how they figure this out.

I would definitely have to read it someday.

As for the moths, we do know from the records kept by British entomologists, that the black variety was virtually unknown before the late 18th century and when they were first discovered, they were prized for their rarity.

So, they did exist. Which is again proof that that mutation (=variety) was already known. Confirming my point.

Which is not a claim made for evolution. Neither the MW definiton, nor the quote from Darwin mentioned any "desired trend of progess". That such "progress" is part of the theory of evolution is a creationist caricature of the theory. Not part of a scientific description of evolution.

Like I said: read again...

holdon · Nov 11, 2007

USincognito said:
Holdon, CF allows infinate editing. Is there any chance you can go back and tighten up your quote tags because they're a few things I'd like to comment on but I'm having a hard time discerning who said what.

Sorry, I don't know how to accomodate you. It is a little like new mutations happening all the time (new words being written), but since "natural selection" allows infinite editing, we don't know what was said when and where.

As gluadys pointed out, that entry isn't for "evolutionism" but for evolution and entry 4 is entirely correct within a biological context. Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc. No value judgements about "advancement" or even mention of "advancement" is included. Entry 5 is utterly unrelated to biology and neither is Entry 6.

So why did you cite them?

Entry 4 pertains to biological context. And you saying "Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc." involves exactly what you're contesting "advancement".

And entry 6 is a more general statement. Don't for a moment think that biology has unique claims to the word "evolution". But when it uses it, it refers to that general thought: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

USincognito · Nov 11, 2007

holdon said:
Sorry, I don't know how to accomodate you. It is a little like new mutations happening all the time (new words being written), but since "natural selection" allows infinite editing, we don't know what was said when and where.

Maybe if you'd spent as much time learning to use the quote function as you did composing this "clever" response you'd have been able to accomodate me.

holdon said:
Entry 4 pertains to biological context. And you saying "Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc." involves exactly what you're contesting "advancement".

No, not any more than my saying I came from my parents, grandparents, etc. suggests that I'm any more "advanced" than they are. I, like other species from progenator species, am merely different from my parents and grandparents.

And again, entry 4 says nothing about "advancement". It only explains how some species arise from previous species, it doesn't make any value judgement.

holdon said:
And entry 6 is a more general statement. Don't for a moment think that biology has unique claims to the word "evolution". But when it uses it, it refers to that general thought: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Then why did you include it since it doesn't apply to the theory of biological evolution? And please don't patronize me, I know the word evolution has been conflated to mean all sorts of things that are seperate from the biological theory. That doesn't mean it is properly applied to evolutionary theory by people who don't understand the latter.

gluadys · Nov 11, 2007

holdon said:
a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Why would you relate that definition to evolution? I was focusing on the two definitions relating to species.

btw, I hope you understand that in this definition "progression" simply means "sequence" as per definition 2 below:

pro·gres·sion (prō gres̸h′ən, prəgres̸hən)

noun

1. a moving forward or onward; progress
2. a sequence or succession, as of acts, happenings, etc.
3. Math. a sequence of numbers, each of which is obtained from its predecessor by the same rule
4. Music
1. the movement forward from one tone or chord to another
2. a succession of tones or chords

Because God is no lousy cook.

Sorry, I don't understand this answer. Are you saying an origin of life from primordial soup would or would not make belief in God problematical for you?

I guess the second you don't see it: could it be the colored glasses??? "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

I certainly see a reference to increasing diversity. Not to "advancement" if by that you mean "improvement" or "moving closer to a goal of perfection".

Of course "natural selection" explains all. Because this is the reasoning: all the life forms that exist today, did undergo "natural selection" which means that only those forms made it that were most fitted over a long period of time, which means that natural selection determined how the life forms came about that we observe today. Challenge: what would have happend if there was no natural selection?

Probably sudden mass extinction as the planet collapsed under a geometrically increasing population. Of course, in its own way, that is natural selection, too. Natural selection is unavoidable where you have a) reproduction beyond the minimum necessary for zero population growth and b) finite resources to sustain life.

You don't know how effective natural selection is in eliminating certain alleles, or making new ones persistant.

Actually, that is measurable, as the links I gave you previously indicated. So we do know.

So, they did exist. Which is again proof that that mutation (=variety) was already known. Confirming my point.

A point nobody ever disputed. No one ever claimed the pepper moth studies were about mutation. They were about natural selection.

Like I said: read again...

Take your own advice. A sequence of events e.g. speciations, even the production of "endless forms most beautiful" is not a "desired trend of progress". The latter phrasing implies a goal or standard against which movement is being measured. Biologists don't evaluate any species as being better than others. Each one, past and present, is wonderfully unique in its own way.

As another writer once put it: "He has made everything beautiful in its time." Eccles. 3:11

gluadys · Nov 11, 2007

holdon said:
And you saying "Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc." involves exactly what you're contesting "advancement".

Then I must ask how you are defining "advancement" for I don't see any meaning I attach to the term in that definition.

Mallon · Nov 12, 2007

holdon said:
And you saying "Current species have come from previous species in their same genus, family, etc." involves exactly what you're contesting "advancement".

So do you feel you are biologically more advanced than your parents?

shernren · Nov 12, 2007

holdon said:
Sorry, this is just too much nonsense for me.

If you're genuinely uninterested in learning why we come to the conclusions we come to, at least have the decency to say so politely.

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

USincognito said:
Maybe if you'd spent as much time learning to use the quote function as you did composing this "clever" response you'd have been able to accomodate me.

If you could just tell me what that "quote function" is, then please spill the beans.

No, not any more than my saying I came from my parents, grandparents, etc. suggests that I'm any more "advanced" than they are. I, like other species from progenator species, am merely different from my parents and grandparents.

Yes, you're just a little different from the chimps (your ancestors?), I presume. (unless you are a chimp, which I have no way of knowing of course)

And again, entry 4 says nothing about "advancement". It only explains how some species arise from previous species, it doesn't make any value judgement.

Who was talking about "value judgment"??? But when you use the word "previous" here, you certainly have to do with "advancement".

And please don't patronize me, I know the word evolution has been conflated to mean all sorts of things that are seperate from the biological theory.

Well you "know" then. Good for you. And why do you want to accuse me of conflation and what not? Why so defensive?

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

gluadys said:
Then I must ask how you are defining "advancement" for I don't see any meaning I attach to the term in that definition.

You mean you don't know what "must have come from" means? This is becoming quite silly.

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

Mallon said:
So do you feel you are biologically more advanced than your parents?

No, I don't. But do you feel more biologically advanced then your ancestors the chimps, or even "more simple" life forms as Darwin put it?

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

shernren said:
If you're genuinely uninterested in learning why we come to the conclusions we come to, at least have the decency to say so politely.

Sorry, I am willing to learn, but if I can't make heads or tails out of your fancy story, it must be above my capabilities.....
Now, you said you came to conclusions. How did you?

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

gluadys said:
Sorry, I don't understand this answer. Are you saying an origin of life from primordial soup would or would not make belief in God problematical for you?

My belief in God is not subject to "science". So the answer is no. And it doesn't say anything about whether "primordial soup" is a good recipe for the origin of life.

I certainly see a reference to increasing diversity. Not to "advancement" if by that you mean "improvement" or "moving closer to a goal of perfection".

What does "natural selection" mean then?

Actually, that is measurable, as the links I gave you previously indicated. So we do know.

Well it is not really measurable in my opinion.

A point nobody ever disputed. No one ever claimed the pepper moth studies were about mutation. They were about natural selection.

But that "natural selection" was apparently not able to delete the particular variant from the population.

Take your own advice. A sequence of events e.g. speciations, even the production of "endless forms most beautiful" is not a "desired trend of progress". The latter phrasing implies a goal or standard against which movement is being measured.

No, it is the desired trend of progress observed by looking back. (if the word "origin" has any meaning at all). It is first and foremost about "the origin of species", possibly even from the origin of life to the origin of families and orders etc.. Or do you think "life forms" as complex as what we have today came into existence spontaneously and suddenly? That would make you (almost) a creationist.

Biologists don't evaluate any species as being better than others. Each one, past and present, is wonderfully unique in its own way.

No doubt about it. And I am not discussing "beauty" at all. But you contradict yourself when you say: "Biologists don't evaluate any species as being better than others.", because that's what the notion of natural selection is all about! Didn't you say "better adapted"??

Mallon · Nov 12, 2007

holdon said:
No, I don't. But do you feel more biologically advanced then your ancestors the chimps, or even "more simple" life forms as Darwin put it?

In some respects, yes.
In other respects, no.
"Advancement" is a terribly subjective word, which is why scientists no longer use the term. In what way do you feel we are more "advanced" than chimps? Sure, our brains are bigger. But there are some things that chimps are better at than ourselves, such as tree climbing.
Or what about dolphins? Again, we may be marginally smarter than them, but they're much better at swimming and using echolation. Does that make them more "advanced" than us?
The bottom line is this: as a species, we've been evolving alongside our animal and plant counterparts for just as long, the only difference being that we are on different branches of the Tree of Life and have undergone different selection pressures. Saying we are "better" or "more advanced" than other lifeforms is a value judgment that does not stem from the science of evolution (or any other science). So let's avoid giving science the power to govern questions of morality, which it was never intended for in the first place, and leave that in the hands of Him who knows best: God.

holdon · Nov 12, 2007

Mallon said:
The bottom line is this: as a species, we've been evolving alongside our animal and plant counterparts for just as long, the only difference being that we are on different branches of the Tree of Life and have undergone different selection pressures.

Back to OP. How do you know "we have undergone different selection pressures"?

How can scientists possibly know ... ?? An open exploration thread

Legend

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Legend

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency