Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[whois]

The word 'evolve' has slightly different meanings in different contexts - in a general context it just means 'to develop gradually' (in chemistry it means 'to give off', e.g. gas, heat).

the only problem is, it's been noted as late as 1980 by eldridge that the fossil record show that there are very few, some would say no, examples of "gradual shading".

In the biological sciences it is used as a shorthand for the genetic changes in living populations - as explained by Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TOE).

kimura and others has shown natural selection has no effect on the vast number of organisms, and is not the dominate force of evolution.

 

[DaisyDay]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory?

The speed of gravity, the idea that gravity has a speed is just not how I picture it. It's not so much as I doubt it as that I have difficulty even grasping the concept.

In general, I find science (and God knows, math) that is beyond my grasp to be most unsatisfactory.

 

[bhsmte]

The two are never separated. In fact, abiogenesis is taught as a subtopic of the ToE.

The only people who wish to remain blindfolded insist the topics are separated. They are not.

So how do you explain the existence of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05
http://www.astrobio.net/

?

You seem blind to the fact, that TOE does not discuss origins.

 

[SkyWriting]

You seem blind to the fact, that TOE does not discuss origins.

Please define your imaginary dividing line between the two science fictional topics.
With precision please.

 

[SkyWriting]

You seem blind to the fact, that TOE does not discuss origins.

Perhaps because I attended school.

Studying the origin of life - Understanding Evolution

The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth

The Origin and Evolution of Life - NJCU

Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics

Origin and Evolution of Life on Planet Earth

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps because I attended school.

Studying the origin of life - Understanding Evolution

The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth

The Origin and Evolution of Life - NJCU

Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics

Origin and Evolution of Life on Planet Earth

Please educate us, in your own words, why the TOE, needs to understand the origin of life.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please educate us, in your own words, why the TOE, needs to understand the origin of life.

Because the physical laws of chemistry and physics apply to both, equally.

 

[bhsmte]

Because the physical laws of chemistry and physics apply to both, equally.

And the TOE works just fine, without knowing the origins of life.

How could that be?

 

[SkyWriting]

And the TOE works just fine, without knowing the origins of life.

How could that be?

Theories are not self aware nor require knowledge to function.
What is the dividing line exactly?

 

[bhsmte]

Theories are not self aware nor require knowledge to function.
What is the dividing line exactly?

You tell me the dividing line, you are the one saying the TOE needs to include the origins of life.

Does germ theory also require the origins of life?

 

[SkyWriting]

You tell me the dividing line, you are the one saying the TOE needs to include the origins of life.

There is no such dividing line. Nature and science are active equally and the same for both topics.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no such dividing line. Nature and science are active equally and the same for both topics.

Does germ theory need to understand the origins of life?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the only problem is, it's been noted as late as 1980 by eldridge that the fossil record show that there are very few, some would say no, examples of "gradual shading".

That's only to be expected, given the timescales involved, how rarely fossilization occurs, and that fossils (with rare exceptions) only preserve skeletal structure. If you have 10 snapshots of someone, taken at random intervals over their whole life, you're unlikely to see many examples, if any, of 'gradual shading' in their changing appearance.

kimura and others has shown natural selection has no effect on the vast number of organisms, and is not the dominate force of evolution.

I very much doubt that - but give me the reference or a link to it, and I'll have a look.

E.T.A. - OK, I checked Kimura's work - the Neutral Theory of Evolution. You've misconstrued it - he's suggesting that most evolutionary changes and variation between species at a molecular level are caused by neutral genetic drift rather than natural selection. BUT - 'According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin'[wikipedia]

Phenotypic evolution is changes to body shape, size, and structure, i.e. not molecular changes. So what he's suggesting is a modification to the current theory, but only applying at a molecular level.

 

[durangodawood]

There is no such dividing line. Nature and science are active equally and the same for both topics.

Yes its, "all nature", but the mechanisms are different, obviously.
You do know that the various natural events are controlled by diverse natural processes, dont you?

 

[whois]

That's only to be expected, given the timescales involved, how rarely fossilization occurs, and that fossils (with rare exceptions) only preserve skeletal structure. If you have 10 snapshots of someone, taken at random intervals over their whole life, you're unlikely to see many examples, if any, of 'gradual shading' in their changing appearance.
I very much doubt that - but give me the reference or a link to it, and I'll have a look.

E.T.A. - OK, I checked Kimura's work - the Neutral Theory of Evolution. You've misconstrued it - he's suggesting that most evolutionary changes and variation between species at a molecular level are caused by neutral genetic drift rather than natural selection. BUT - 'According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, and phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, as postulated by Charles Darwin'[wikipedia]

Phenotypic evolution is changes to body shape, size, and structure, i.e. not molecular changes. So what he's suggesting is a modification to the current theory, but only applying at a molecular level.

what do you think evolution is?
evolution is all about genetic variations.
you cannot possibly have common descent without it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can't speak for hypothetical aliens - you seem to know them better than I; it might not be intuitively obvious from a superficial explanation - it's a simple principle with profound implications over geological time, but I expect that if he had access to the available evidence, a little study should convince him that it's possible, and it happened. Alternatively, a technologically competent alien might run a simple computer simulation and discover the power of replication with heritable variation and selection.

But would not that alien observe only the same things we observe here on earth if looking at earth?

So it would observe Asian mating with Asian producing Asian. African mating with African producing only African. Yet when Asian mated with African an Afro-Asian (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Asian would still be an Asian and the African an African - neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.

So it would observe Husky mating with Husky producing Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Yet when Husky mated with Mastiff a Chinook (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Husky would still be a Husky and the Mastiff a Mastiff - neither evolved into the Chinook.

The alien would then come to the logical conclusion that none of them evolved into anything new - and that claims it happened that way in the past was falsified by direct empirical evidence.

The alien would logically conclude there was no evolution. That it always takes two, and so male and female created He them. Just as the alien logically concluded no evolution from viewing how life propagated on it's planet.

 

[lesliedellow]

But would not that alien observe only the same things we observe here on earth if looking at earth?

So it would observe Asian mating with Asian producing Asian. African mating with African producing only African. Yet when Asian mated with African an Afro-Asian (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Asian would still be an Asian and the African an African - neither evolved into the Afro-Asian.

So it would observe Husky mating with Husky producing Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Yet when Husky mated with Mastiff a Chinook (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Husky would still be a Husky and the Mastiff a Mastiff - neither evolved into the Chinook.

The alien would then come to the logical conclusion that none of them evolved into anything new - and that claims it happened that way in the past was falsified by direct empirical evidence.

The alien would logically conclude there was no evolution. That it always takes two, and so male and female created He them. Just as the alien logically concluded no evolution from viewing how life propagated on it's planet.

One of the biggest creationist red herrings going. Not as though there aren't enough of them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One of the biggest creationist red herrings going. Not as though there aren't enough of them.

And so you avoid the topic and participate in ad-hominem attacks as always - because we both know not a single evolutionist here can promote evolution without ignoring direct empirical evidence.

You have observed nothing but Asian mating with Asian producing Asians. African mating with Africans producing Africans. And only when Asians mates with African does variation (Afro-Asian) appear in the species.

I understand all you have is your defensive ad-hominem attacks because you lack any science to counter the observational evidence - and so do not hold it against you personally. I understand, I really do. I understand the glitter of Fairie Dust is mesmerizing. But you really should stop ignoring the direct empirical observations. It only shows your theory for what it is - pseudo-science, because it can't even accommodate what we observe.

 

[SkyWriting]

...because we both know not a single evolutionist here can promote evolution without ignoring direct empirical evidence.

I feel that my dog breeder gives a good illustration of natural selection.
I tried to mix two well behaved breeds, but my latest puppy is a real
pill sometimes.

But it only takes one generation to get extensive variation in a breed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But would not that alien observe only the same things we observe here on earth if looking at earth?
...
So it would observe Husky mating with Husky producing Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Yet when Husky mated with Mastiff a Chinook (variation) would appear suddenly in the record, with no missing links between any. And the Husky would still be a Husky and the Mastiff a Mastiff - neither evolved into the Chinook.

The alien would then come to the logical conclusion that none of them evolved into anything new - and that claims it happened that way in the past was falsified by direct empirical evidence.

The alien would logically conclude there was no evolution. That it always takes two, and so male and female created He them. Just as the alien logically concluded no evolution from viewing how life propagated on it's planet.

One could only hope that the alien was intelligent enough to realise that cross-breeding of varieties within species is not evolution by natural selection...