The fruit of evolution model ?

[EnemyPartyII]

We know virus will change based on experience (observation), not by theory. You call the change evolve, but I don't really need that term and concept and can still do everything the same as you do.

now you're just straight up goal post shifting.

 

[juvenissun]

Um... actually we CAN predict the change, in both bacteria and viruses, based on what we know about evolution.

Now, according to Creationsim, there shouldn't be a change at all, right? Not without God's direct intervention anyway. So, there've been a couple of people make bonafide attempts to show you examples of evolution making a concrete contribution to science.

Your turn to do the same for Creationism now...

We predict based on logic, not by the principle of evolution. A person knows nothing about evolution can still make the same prediction (guess) based on the known history of change. But, as we know it, the prediction is usually (if not always) wrong. So, officials never make formal prediction. They said: "This is what we do based on experience. We do not know, and we will see what happen."

 

[juvenissun]

now you're just straight up goal post shifting.

No, I did not shift the goalpost, not a bit.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We predict based on logic, not by the principle of evolution.

How does "logic" suggest a bacterium will change without the idea of evolution?

A person knows nothing about evolution can still make the same prediction (guess) based on the known history of change.

So how come no one did so until AFTER the theory of evolution was established?

But, as we know it, the prediction is usually (if not always) wrong.

On what planet?

So, officials never make formal prediction. They said: "This is what we do based on experience. We do not know, and we will see what happen."

The people who make flu vaccines make a formal prediction every year, when they produce millions of doses of flu vaccine for a flu virus that doesn't exist yet.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, I did not shift the goalpost, not a bit.

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

Then when provided with examples, you suddenly adopt the stance that scientific understandings of previously observed phenomena don't count, and that only predictions do.
Then when given examples of predicti0ons based on evolutionary theory, you claim that the predictions in question aren't based on evolutionary theory, but "logic", without offering an example of a logically determined explanation for observed allele frequency shift.
Goal post shifting.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Turning nature's design into scientific breakthrough - CNET News Evolution is used and relied on everyday in the real scientific circles. .... advancement of designs based upon real world biosphere observations. ...

Applications

Further information: Artificial selection and Evolutionary computation
Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[258] A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the domestication of plants and animals.[259] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a process called directed evolution.[260]
Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[261] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[262] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[263] Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the zebrafish revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.[264]
As evolution can produce highly optimized processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Here, simulations of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.[265] Artificial evolution became a widely recognized optimization method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution strategies to solve complex engineering problems.[266] Genetic algorithms in particular became popular through the writing of John Holland.[267] As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the automatic evolution of computer programs.[268] Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimize the design of systems.[269]

Evolution 101: What are the Practical Applications of Evolution?
Evolution 101: What are the Practical Applications of Evolution?
17 Jun 2006 ... The application of evolution even jumps beyond biology. In computer science, genetic algorithms, that is, a programming technique that ...

 

[crawfish]

It would take my time to think about it.

Fair enough. I would love to give a detailed explanation but I am no scientist and I know I would fail miserably. One of the things that cemented my acceptance of evolution was talking to a petroleum geologist and a medical researcher, both of whom explained in detail how they used evolutionary theory to build models with successful real-world results. From GIGO, I do know that the likelihood of successful results from bad assumptions is very low; therefore there has to be something to it.

I would love to be able to give their examples, but I know I would fail miserably. I'll leave the science to the scientists on this board.

 

[sfs]

I'm guessing "recent human population" doesn't mean approaching seven billion in this case?

Correct. The effective population size of humans is around 20,000. That's because most of the variation we see is older than the very recent (in genetic terms) expansion. As we look at rarer and rarer variants, however -- which is happening increasingly as we sequence many individuals -- the effects of the expansion become more important.

 

[depthdeception]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

How would one come to the conclusion that the principle of evolution is "true" or "false"? Evolutionary theory is just that--a theory (and I mean that in the sense of scientific theory, not "best guess"). It is a framework within which to describe the observation of natural phenomenon and make predictions about the same based upon said observation.

I don't see that it is a question of philosophy...

 

[lucaspa]

This question just came to me:

Do we have any example of a scientific achievement which is based on the principle of evolution?

In other words, the format is: because evolution said this and that, so we get this breakthrough in understanding. In other words, we could not make this breakthrough if the said principle of evolution is not true.

My guess is that there is none. Please show me that I am wrong.

Dozens. I'll give you a list of papers to read. You won't read them, but they are there for others to do so:
1. D Ebert, Evolution: experimental evolution of parasites. Science 282:1432-1433, Nov. 20, 1998. A review article summarizing the use of evolution in a test tube to study parasites (viruses and bacteria). Used to study diseases and work out new treatments.
2. RM Nesse and GC Williams, Evolution and the origins of disease. Scientific American 279: 86-93, Nov. 1998. Concepts from evolution help unify the medical sciences.
3. PW Ewald and G Cochran, Catching on to what's catching. Natural History 108: 34-37, Feb. 1998. Applying Darwinian thinking to understand infectious diseases.
4. BR Levin, M Lipsitch, S Bonhoeffer, Evolution and disease: population biology, evolution, and infectious disease: convergence and synthesis. Science 283: 806-809, Feb. 5, 1998.
6. Ecology and evolution of infection. Science 292: 1089-1122, May 11, 2001. Series of articles examining evolution of diseases and resistance.
7. KC Nicolaou, CNC Boddy, Behind enemy lines. Scientific American 284: 54-61, May 2001
5. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n10/pdf/nrc2732.pdf evolution of p53 and role in tumor suppression. New ideas on treatment of cancer

As SFS said, all of modern medicine. Any drug or treatment (including surgical) developled in the last 60 years has been based on evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

How would one come to the conclusion that the principle of evolution is "true" or "false"? Evolutionary theory is just that--a theory (and I mean that in the sense of scientific theory, not "best guess"). It is a framework within which to describe the observation of natural phenomenon and make predictions about the same based upon said observation.

I don't see that it is a question of philosophy...

The same way that any theory is judged true or false: comparison to observations.

You see, your description of "theory" is not quite right. You have theory as an explanation of observations. Most theories are not that. Instead, the theory comes first and then the observations come later. The theory, as you somewhat noted, predicts the observations. Those predictions are used to evaluate the truth or falsity of the theory. If the predicted data is found, that supports the truth of the theory. If contrary data is found, then that shows the theory to be false.

Here's an example from evolution and the fossil record:

"For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. " Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science
Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

 

[depthdeception]

The same way that any theory is judged true or false: comparison to observations.

You see, your description of "theory" is not quite right. You have theory as an explanation of observations. Most theories are not that. Instead, the theory comes first and then the observations come later. The theory, as you somewhat noted, predicts the observations. Those predictions are used to evaluate the truth or falsity of the theory. If the predicted data is found, that supports the truth of the theory. If contrary data is found, then that shows the theory to be false.

Here's an example from evolution and the fossil record:

"For example, scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. " Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science
Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

I'm not sure I see what the relative accuracy of a prediction has to do with the philosophical notion of "truth." The evaluation of a theory based on observational results does not operate in the realm of philosophy; rather, it is an adjudication of the usefulness of a particular theoretical model to the classification and explanation of available data. However, because the analysis of the data operates within the same domain as the subjectivity of those evaluating it, the objectivity of the "truth" of the data remains yet elusive.

 

[juvenissun]

How would one come to the conclusion that the principle of evolution is "true" or "false"? Evolutionary theory is just that--a theory (and I mean that in the sense of scientific theory, not "best guess"). It is a framework within which to describe the observation of natural phenomenon and make predictions about the same based upon said observation.

I don't see that it is a question of philosophy...

The OP does not ask if evolution is true or not. It asks if evolution works or not. I think evolution is only an idea given by scientific research, but it is not needed to drive scientific research.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not sure I see what the relative accuracy of a prediction has to do with the philosophical notion of "truth."

Deductive logic. True statements cannot have false consequences. Hypotheses/theories are statements. Those statements have consequences. Prediction is another way to say "consequence of the theory".

When we find false consequences/observations/predictions, then we know the hypothesis/theory is false.

Example: the theory that the earth is flat.
Prediction #1: ships disappearing over the horizon will disappear all at once.
Prediction #2: It is impossible to travel continuously in one direction and get back to your point of departure.

Actual observation: ships disappearing over the horizon do so hull first, then the masts.
Sailing generally westward from Europe (like Magellan) or flying in an airplane gets you back to your point of departure.

Since the statement "the earth is flat" has false consequences (predictions), it is false.

Another example: Space curves around mass. (Relativity).
Prediction: light from distant stars that pass close to the sun (a huge mass) will not appear shifted from a straight line.

Actual observation in 1919 by Eddington and others: during a total solar eclipse the apparent position of stars was measured precisely. Those positions were shifted exactly as Relativity predicted.

In this case, Relativity has only had true consequences. Therefore we regard it as true.

The evaluation of a theory based on observational results does not operate in the realm of philosophy; rather, it is an adjudication of the usefulness of a particular theoretical model to the classification and explanation of available data.

Again, you have an outmoded idea of theory. You are applying theory only to data that is already known. But theories are not just explanations of available data. They are statements about the nature of the physical universe and predict new data that should be found if they are correct. Karl Popper explained it this way:

"scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

Futuyma put it this way:
"The most powerful form of science, then, consists of formulating hypotheses, sometimes by observation and sometimes by intuition, analogy, or other sources of insight that we do not fully understand; and deducing conclusions from these hypotheses that can be tested directly or indirectly by observation or experiment." Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1995 ed., pg 169.

However, because the analysis of the data operates within the same domain as the subjectivity of those evaluating it, the objectivity of the "truth" of the data remains yet elusive.

Sorry, but analysis of data does not operate withing subjectivity. Science limits itself to "intersubjective" experience. Intersubjective means the data is the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions. The objectivity is fine.

What we encounter are people who, for reasons outside of science, simply do not want to admit to the data and the effect on theories. Most often it means, like phlogiston chemists and creationists, that there are people who won't admit a theory is falsified.

Other times, like Einstein with quantum mechanics and creationists with evolution, there are people who won't admit a theory is true.

This has nothing to do with the "analysis of data", but rather with the psychology of the individuals.

 

[juvenissun]

(Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered. " Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science
Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science[/FONT]

OK, this is a good example. We see one thing on one side, and we see another thing on the other side, then we predict there could be a thing in the middle. I think a child can make this extension. The idea of evolution is, really, not needed in this case. This is a simple logic. Any research can use this logic. Most of all, this method does not make new discovery.

In this case, a true new discovery would be the prediction of fly by the obserevation of scorpionflies, which I think nobody can do.

 

[sfs]

As SFS said, all of modern medicine. Any drug or treatment (including surgical) developled in the last 60 years has been based on evolution.

That statement wasn't from me. I don't even agree with it.

 

[juvenissun]

Dozens. I'll give you a list of papers to read. You won't read them, but they are there for others to do so:
1. D Ebert, Evolution: experimental evolution of parasites. Science 282:1432-1433, Nov. 20, 1998. A review article summarizing the use of evolution in a test tube to study parasites (viruses and bacteria). Used to study diseases and work out new treatments.
2. RM Nesse and GC Williams, Evolution and the origins of disease. Scientific American 279: 86-93, Nov. 1998. Concepts from evolution help unify the medical sciences.
3. PW Ewald and G Cochran, Catching on to what's catching. Natural History 108: 34-37, Feb. 1998. Applying Darwinian thinking to understand infectious diseases.
4. BR Levin, M Lipsitch, S Bonhoeffer, Evolution and disease: population biology, evolution, and infectious disease: convergence and synthesis. Science 283: 806-809, Feb. 5, 1998.
6. Ecology and evolution of infection. Science 292: 1089-1122, May 11, 2001. Series of articles examining evolution of diseases and resistance.
7. KC Nicolaou, CNC Boddy, Behind enemy lines. Scientific American 284: 54-61, May 2001
5. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n10/pdf/nrc2732.pdf evolution of p53 and role in tumor suppression. New ideas on treatment of cancer

As SFS said, all of modern medicine. Any drug or treatment (including surgical) developled in the last 60 years has been based on evolution.

Would you introduce me one of these studies and summarize how did the study use evolution to discover?

 

[sfs]

OK, this is a good example. We see one thing on one side, and we see another thing on the other side, then we predict there could be a thing in the middle. I think a child can make this extension.

Using your logic, one could make all kinds of predictions, many of them completely ridiculous. On the one side, we see quadrupedal mammals, and on the other hand, we see bipedal humans. Therefore, even a child could deduce that we should find fossilized quadrupedal humans.

Do you really think this kind of logic is going to be useful in making predictions?

The idea of evolution is, really, not needed in this case. This is a simple logic. Any research can use this logic.

Then why doesn't it? Why don't creationists make valid predictions, if this kind of logic can be applied so usefully? Why is that only biologists, using evolution, seem to be able to do it?

Most of all, this method does not make new discovery.

How was the discovery of the fossil fly not a new discovery?

 

[lucaspa]

I think evolution is only an idea given by scientific research, but it is not needed to drive scientific research.

In the biological sciences, including biomedical research, evolution is certainly needed. As Dobzhansky put it "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

As I said, evolution has underlain, and often "driven", all biomedical research in the last 60 years.

 

[sfs]

I'm not sure I see what the relative accuracy of a prediction has to do with the philosophical notion of "truth."

You were the only one who introduced the philosophical notion of truth -- unless, that is, you mean that the notion of "truth" is exclusively the preserve of philosophy, which is simply false. (And not in any specifically philosophical sense.)

The evaluation of a theory based on observational results does not operate in the realm of philosophy;

Quite true (there's that word again) -- so why introduce philosophy at all?

rather, it is an adjudication of the usefulness of a particular theoretical model to the classification and explanation of available data.

And the reason that scientists bother judging the usefulness of theoretical models to the classification and explanation of available data is because they want to know how the world works. They want to know which models are more accurate representations of what actually goes on in the physical world. Inaccurate models provide poor explanations and make bad predictions. How to relate that notion of accuracy to philosophical notions of truth is a problem for philosophers to work out; whether they do or not, however, scientists are going to go on accepting some statements as true and some statements as false, based on their conformity to data.

However, because the analysis of the data operates within the same domain as the subjectivity of those evaluating it, the objectivity of the "truth" of the data remains yet elusive.

It's possible that that sentence means something, but I remain skeptical.