The Scientific Method (revisited)

[Northern Christian]

I've asked this before, but no one answered my question, so I'll ask it again:

Please explain how you arrived at evolution using the scientific method.

I know what the scientific method is. I want to know how you used it to arrive on evolution. I'll point out the flaws in your thinking once you explain.

 

[Phred]

To what end? You expect me to waste my time explaining a vast scientific theory to you so you can pop up some strawman, tear it down and ignore what I write?

No thanks...

 

[Arikay]

First, give us a basic definition of,
Evolution.
and
The scientific method.

Not anything complicated, just the basic definition.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Simple. You examine the evidence, create a postulate, and see if that postulate is valid.

Evidence
Life exists in many and varied forms today.
Many species seem similar to eachother, yet distinct (alligators and crocodiles, tigers and crocodiles, etc.).
Fossilized skeletons of extinct species have been found.
More recent fossils seem better developed (early fish lack jawbones, armored fish have died out).

Postulate
Species gradually change

Tests
If species change then there must be some mechanism for the change - there is.
If species change there must be some way of differentiating between good changes and bad changes - there is.
If species change then there must be clear links between newer and older species - there is.

etc.
etc.
etc.

Get the idea?

 

[-Jae-]

Yeah , its somewhat too much trouble. Perhaps you should just post some refutations of evolution ( www.drdino.com is always nice for some copy paste) and im sure someone will tear it down and then you will ignore it.

Sorry if I sound harsh , but I had a long discussion today with my science project partner. Turns out he is a YEC =[

 

[LorentzHA]

I love how creationists demand proof, when it is presented, they ignore it. They always demand prrof but yet have NONE to offer on creationism except for siting the book fro mtheir OWN belief system. As least Evolution has things you can see and touch and test...geesh!

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Going to use one of Darwin's examples, though there are many.


Observation-
One of the inspirations for evolution are Darwins finches. They are remarkably similar, yet their beaks vary depending on which islands they inhabit and what foods are available. It is often difficult to name which species the finch belongs too since they are very similar.

Problem-
This begs the question "why are the finches so similar yet so highly specialized?"

Hypothesis-
Something has caused there to be several species of finches that are very similar yet vary ever so slightly to fill a niche in nature. What this something is requires more observation.

Experiment-
Sail to the next island and see what kind of finches inhabit it. Also note the habitat and how the finch lives in it.

Data-
The variations in the beaks and bodies of the finch dictate where it is capable of living, only certain finches are located in certain areas.

Conclusion-
The enviroment seems to dictate what kind of finch lives on which island. How it does this Darwin didn't have the foggiest idea and dubbed it "Natural selection" since nature is apparently selecting what kind of finch lives on which island.

Now let's fast forward 102 years and David Lack is now in the galapagos. He is aware of Darwin's work and intends to study the finches more closely. He doesn't know what he'll find, he just wants more data on the finches.


Observation/Experiment/Data-
Finches of different species rarely if ever interbreed when put together in a cage during their mating season while finches of the same species are much more willing. Upon mapping out the geographical range of each finch species it is apparent that 1 species or 2 main species dominate any given island.

Hypothosis-
The finches show a reluctance to interbreed that could be caused by them not recognizing each other as capable sexual partners. The geography of the island does indeed dictate what kind of finch is living there.

Conclusion-
Finches do not like to interbreed with other species and are apparently limited to which islands they may live on.


Now let's go 36 years into the future in 1973 the Grants arrive at the galapagos and want to get even more detailed data. Not only do they expound upon the general theory but also manage to falsify some of our previous understandings of the finches.

Objective-
Study the difference in the beaks of the finches.

Experiment-
Capture finches and measure their beaks, keeping detailed logs and population averages for the species.

Observation/Data-
During a drought period many of the finches alternative food sources were far less abundant but nuts were still plentiful. The averagefortis beak before the drought was 10.68 mm long and 9.42 mm deep. The average beak of the fortis that survived the drought was 11.07 mm long and 9.96 mm deep. On a geological time scale this is a very rapid change.

Hypothesis-
The drought period caused a measurable increase in the fortis species beak size. There primary food source during this time were large nuts. Thus common sense tells us that a larger, stronger beak is better at cracking nuts.

Conclusion-
The change in the enviroment was reflected in the fortis population average beak size. This is now known as speciation.


However another interesting discovery was made, the finches are indeed capable of interbreeding on their own and having successful offspring! To add to this it was later noted that certain species are present on various islands and several species can be on a single island, even though one or two are most common.

According to the general rule that defines a species it is a defined group of like animals that can only breed and rear successful offspring with their own kind. However this traditional view poses many problems. It is very ambigous about asexual creatures, self pollinating plants, creatures who can mate with different species and rear infertile offspring (mules for example), and variations within a species that could be seperate species or on the verge of becoming seperate species. Therefore how do we classify these critters? Different biologists will use different methods. Some use the reproduction test, although some animals of the same species are incredibly difficult to mate like pandas. Others go off of physical characteristics like how the finches were sorted. Still others may go off of the animals family tree of evolution. To put it bluntly this topic is still under discussion.


Anyways, back to the finches and the drought. Here we see an obvious case of the enviroment affecting the population average by killing off the fortis with smaller beaks. Also we see evidence that can lead us to punctuated equilibrium, rapid evolution in response to drastic enviromental changes.

More in depth studies need to be done but the evidence is very favorable thus far.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Bump, northern must have missed it

 

[Taffsadar]

"Read on the origin of species by the means of natural selection" by Charles Darwin, it really shows how you get to that conclusion.

Btw does anyone have an online version that we can copy and paste from?

 

[DrLao]

Btw does anyone have an online version that we can copy and paste from?

Here you go: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

 

[Arikay]

It doesn't look like our friend is coming back. or maybe he forgot about us.

 

[tankiawee]

The natural selection of creationists?

Perhaps the creationists that can't overwhelm the evidence with a sufficently large load of Bible and/or pious quotes die out and so there is a gradual increase in overall/average creationist survivability. Because of increased creationist survivability, creationism adapts (read evolves) and flourishes.

There, evolution applied to creationism.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Yeah , its somewhat too much trouble. Perhaps you should just post some refutations of evolution ( www.drdino.com is always nice for some copy paste) and im sure someone will tear it down and then you will ignore it.

Sorry if I sound harsh , but I had a long discussion today with my science project partner. Turns out he is a YEC =[

May I suggest exposure to this site?

 

[Gracchus]

The natural selection of creationists?

Perhaps the creationists that can't overwhelm the evidence with a sufficently large load of Bible and/or pious quotes die out and so there is a gradual increase in overall/average creationist survivability. Because of increased creationist survivability, creationism adapts (read evolves) and flourishes.

There, evolution applied to creationism.

Indeed, creationism is evolving, as science does, by fitting itself to the unyielding facts of the real world. The flat Earth was selected out, the six thousand year old Earth was aged to ten thousand, then the geocentric theory forced it's way into the world of indisputable truth. Now, few but fools can be found to debate the age of the earth and Noah's flood.

With scientific creationism and the ID movement hiding God so as not to appear religious, one can readily imagine that creationism will slide silently into oblivion, with naught carved upon its tombstone but "Ignorant Superstition." But that is not yet.