How to choose between creation and evolution.

[tas8831]

What I find interesting is that many who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that, 'it isn't just another scientific theory;' until, you know, it becomes convenient for it ti be one.

I think you are confusing that with the standard anti-science assertion such as "its just a theory".

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I think you are confusing that with the standard anti-science assertion such as "its just a theory".

Er... no. But nice try.

 

[tas8831]

I'll get right on that, as soon as you prove that which you claim is indeed a fact.

fact
noun
\ ˈfakt \
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existencespace exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrenceprove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective realityThese are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITYa question of fact hinges on evidence
4: a thing done: such as
a: CRIMEaccessory after the fact
barchaic : ACTION
cobsolete : FEAT

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

YOUR TURN

 

[tas8831]

The evidence of creation is all around us,

I love it when creationists write things like this.

Give a specific example?

but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.

So, no example, no explanation, no mechanism of creation, etc., just silly platitudes and slogans.

Got it.

 

[Speedwell]

The evidence of creation is all around us, but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.

So the only alternative to biblical creationism is that things created themselves from nothing. And then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

 

[tas8831]

Er... no. But nice try.

Er, yes. That is what your people do on a regular basis. Even senile, astrologer-using Ronzo Reagan said it.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Er, yes. That is what your people do on a regular basis. Even senile, astrologer-using Ronzo Reagan said it.

*chuckle* Alrighty friend. Have a good evening. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m a little tired of you repeating that lie about macroevolution not happening. Speciation is macroevolution. Example 1 lions and tigers - genus Panthera they’ve separated so much that while they can mate and produce healthy hybrid offspring, the offspring are infertile. They’ve fully speciated . Example 2 Timema cristinae,which is an insect, is in the process of speciating. Showing mate preference between the 2 types which is how speciation starts . The insect and the cats are examples of slow speciation due to natural selection. Example 3 Polyploid speciation is a fast type of speciation. The offspring are another species and cannot mate with the parent species due to different chromosome numbers. This is very very common in plants . These are just 3 examples of macroevolution. The creationist version of kinds is actually macroevolution .!

 

[tas8831]

*chuckle* Alrighty friend. Have a good evening. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

Right, sorry that I up-ended your shtick..

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationist version of kinds is actually macroevolution .!

How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?

In addition, how is it that both avian and non-avian dinosaurs were aboard at the same time?

 

[pitabread]

How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?

Because it's just a story.

(And for the record, the tale of Noah's Ark doesn't explicitly mention any dinosaurs. Any imagining of that is an addition to the story.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's just a story.

Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?

 

[pitabread]

Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?

No, because Noah's Ark being a fictional tale has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?

I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because Noah's Ark being a fictional tale has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?

Really?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.

And if it wasn't, would the theory of evolution as it exists today need some editing?

 

[pitabread]

You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?

I worry about it as much as I worry about the literary effects of warp drives in Star Trek being detrimental to modern physics as it is taught today.

In other words, not at all.

(Besides, the Bible doesn't explicitly mention dinosaurs. Or are you thinking of the Flintstones? )

 

[AV1611VET]

I worry about it as much as I worry about the literary effects of warp drives in Star Trek being detrimental to modern physics as it is taught today.

In other words, not at all.

I don't want you to worry about it.

I want to know if you see it.

Although I'll admit: science is myopic.

So maybe it can't be seen.

 

[pitabread]

I don't want you to worry about it.

I want to know if you see it.

See what? Perhaps if you try making your point clearly I'll understand what you are trying to get at.

Although I'll admit: science is myopic.

 

[VirOptimus]

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

This is very wrong, its also not about what a scientific theory entails so its also irrelevant.