TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."

"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers.

On Thursday, Miller -- along with fellow teachers and scientists -- cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form.

"Obviously, this is quite a victory for good science education," said Benjamin Z. Freed, an anthropology professor at Atlanta's Emory University and chairman of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education.

But some parents and religious conservatives decried the ruling as another in a string of what opponents call activist judges overruling the wishes of elected officials -- often on matters of religion.

"It's another example of how the bench is dictating to people what symbols they can display, if they can pray or not pray or if they can teach a particular subject," said Sadie Fields, head of the Georgia chapter of the Christian Coalition.

The Georgia case is one of several battles waged in recent years throughout the nation over what role evolution should play in science books.

The school district just north of Atlanta approved the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life.

During four days of testimony in federal court last November, the school system defended the warning stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism as some parents claimed. Its attorneys argued the school board had made a good-faith effort to address questions that inevitably arise during the teaching of evolution.

The stickers read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Scientists, several of whom testified in the case, say the sticker confuses the scientific term "theory" with the word's common usage and inappropriately combines science with personal religious belief.

"Many of us hold deeply personal religious ideals as well," Freed said. "But for a science teacher in a public school to introduce religion into a science class would fall way outside the ideals of any organization of scientists or science educators."

A group of parents and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violate the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Jeffrey Selman, whose son was a second-grader in Cobb County schools at the time, called Thursday's ruling a "shot across the bow" of religious fundamentalists he says are attempting to introduce their beliefs in the classroom.

"I got what I wanted; I got the stickers removed," said Selman.

The school board issued a statement saying members are disappointed by the ruling and are meeting with lawyers to decide whether to appeal. The Cobb school system has 30 days to appeal.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/0...s.ap/index.html

Thanks for bringing that up. That is great news. The fundies are about to get another bitchslapping in Dover, PA pretty soon here too. There's a big reason why the ID institutions like Discovery.org are backing off there - it's lookin' more and more like they just might label ID as "creationism" in the courts. If that happens, the '87 Supreme Court case will deem it illegal to teach ID anywhere in the science classroom (they ruled creationism = religion).

All positive outlooks, but it would be foolish to underestimate the fundy movement.

Wow, thats one county away from me. Its not in my textbook as well

Re: Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Scientists, several of whom testified in the case, say the sticker confuses the scientific term "theory" with the word's common usage and inappropriately combines science with personal religious belief.

Actually, if "theory" is used as according to scientific understanding, the sticker would be much more acceptable to science (meaning that evolution is a pillar of modern scientific explanation of the world). If it is used as it is probably meant - as meaning "hypothesis" - it is much more offending to the hardcore atheistic evolutionists, so this quote really makes little sense.

No matter how ridiculous it is to force a book to carry a sticker, the fundamentalist fools behind the act is correct in asserting that evolution is a hypothesis, and not to be confused with a precise scientific measurement. Authors writing about evolution sometimes forget that fact in their awe of the beauty of the theory.

Re: Re: Evolution ruling gets cheers from scientists

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic No matter how ridiculous it is to force a book to carry a sticker, the fundamentalist fools behind the act is correct in asserting that evolution is a hypothesis, and not to be confused with a precise scientific measurement. Authors writing about evolution sometimes forget that fact in their awe of the beauty of the theory.

Evolution is merely a "hyothesis" and has not undergone a sufficient level of scientific examination to reach the status of being scientific "theory" yet? Care to elaborate?

Of course, though it will be a little short.
First, let me state that by "evolution" I am referring to evolution through mutation and natural selection, just to ensure that we are on the same page here. The reasons why I do not consider evolution as more than a hypothesis are:

1) The hypothesis fails the Popper test. It is used for explaining some phenomena, but clear predictions cannot be drawn from it, and hence it cannot be falsified. This is the most important point to me, and puts the hypothesis outside what can be considered scientific theory.

2) The hypothesis is most often portrayed as explaining all diversity of the species as well as all of "Nature's ingenuities". However, as it stands today (at least according to my knowledge) it does not explain convincingly the jumps in evolution that fossil evidence suggests is happening. Nor have I seen a decent explanation of how the complexity found in some species today was evolved, when probability calculus asserts that it would require much more time than the period with life on Earth.
I do believe that evolution is happening, and am aware that the problems outlined above are only connected to the way the hypothesis is presented to laymen. When it is put forth as a be-all and end-all explanation, I think that is wrong. And when hardcore atheistic evolutionists choose to overlook or belittle these problems the hypothesis as such looses credibility and gains an unfortunate air of religious conviction.

I hope that added a bit of sense to my first post.

Here's a good place to get started when it comes to the math behind evolution:

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/Mirrors/ft...ife/www/top.htm

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic 1) The hypothesis fails the Popper test. It is used for explaining some phenomena, but clear predictions cannot be drawn from it, and hence it cannot be falsified. This is the most important point to me, and puts the hypothesis outside what can be considered scientific theory.

Well I may not be educated of the specifics of the "Popper test" but my understandng of Popper's philosophy was that logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive. I don't recall that Popper ever required that exact predictions were to be derived from theory. But what predictions were you looking for? Predictions of species mutating in a direct response to environemental conditions? I think you know that that is not what evolution dictates.

quote:

2) The hypothesis is most often portrayed as explaining all diversity of the species as well as all of "Nature's ingenuities". However, as it stands today (at least according to my knowledge) it does not explain convincingly the jumps in evolution that fossil evidence suggests is happening. Nor have I seen a decent explanation of how the complexity found in some species today was evolved, when probability calculus asserts that it would require much more time than the period with life on Earth. I do believe that evolution is happening, and am aware that the problems outlined above are only connected to the way the hypothesis is presented to laymen. When it is put forth as a be-all and end-all explanation, I think that is wrong. And when hardcore atheistic evolutionists choose to overlook or belittle these problems the hypothesis as such looses credibility and gains an unfortunate air of religious conviction. I hope that added a bit of sense to my first post.

What jumps in evolution that fossil evidence has excluded? There have been quite a few transitional fossils that are indicative of "macro" evolution (as if it were any different than "micro" evolution). Simply because we don't have volumes of fossil evidence that illustrate each and every minutia of every transitional phase is hardly a gunuine counter-instance. For example in as little as 200 years ago the passenger pigeon population numbered in the tens of billions. Single flocks alone numbered in the millions. Yet as of the early 1900s the entire species became extinct. To the best of my knowledge there is not one fossil record of their existence, but does this conclusively prove the species never existed? As for probability models that negate the possibility of the complexity in species we see today, I would like to see such models.

Do people actually refuse evolution that much? Weird, here even in religious schools evolution is accepted... where in the world can you find similar problems?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic 1) The hypothesis fails the Popper test. It is used for explaining some phenomena, but clear predictions cannot be drawn from it, and hence it cannot be falsified. This is the most important point to me, and puts the hypothesis outside what can be considered scientific theory.

It is falsifiable though. If it were clear that genetic mutation was impossible or prohibitively rare, that the principles of natural selection could not be observed amongst living animals, or that there was no observable speciational gradiation amongst fossils in all sedimentary layers, then it is quite clear that the theory would need to be scrapped or revised. The fact is though, all these things exist as we would expect them to in the event that evolution were true. If the facts didn't fit the theory - as creationists assert - then, quite simply, we'd have a different theory that did fit the available evidence. That's how science works.

If there is anyone out there with a more viable scientific theory of the origin of species - or even just valid evidence of the fallibility of the current theory - then they're giving up fame and fortune by remaining quiet.

quote:

2) The hypothesis is most often portrayed as explaining all diversity of the species as well as all of "Nature's ingenuities". However, as it stands today (at least according to my knowledge) it does not explain convincingly the jumps in evolution that fossil evidence suggests is happening.

Firstly it's a prediction of the evolutionary theory that species will not evolve other than through necessity. Animals like sharks and cockroaches, that are well adapted to their environments, have hardly changed over the past 500 million years for instance. However, when environments do change fairly drastically, we find two things in the fossil record - large scale extinction and rapid speciation. Even going back to the most recent drastic climate change just 15,000 years or so ago - the receding ice age - you'll find exactly this. Take the mammoth for instance - once the ice melted away, the niche it had filled (large, cold tundras presumably) were no longer there so, in some cases where the population was isolated for long enough, it evolved fairly rapidly through necessity (into the modern day African and Asian elephants) and in other cases it simply died off (where they once roamed freely through Europe, they no longer could once the ice shelf receded). Now keep in mind that all this occurred in the space of just a few thousand years - the blink of an eye in geological terms, where tens of millions of years of the Earth's history can be compressed into a few feet of rock.

Secondly the process of fossilisation is quite rare and only occurs under a series of specific conditions (such as rapid sedimentation) that means, depending on the sort of environment the animals were living in, some species will be very uncommon or difficult to find in the geological record. Also, much of the geological record has either been destroyed (think about all the rock that must have been weathered away or melted in the Earth's core over the past few billion years) or is completely inaccessible to human beings (we're sitting on about 8km of evolutionary history - none but the top couple of hundred metres at most are accessible to us). Therefore, the fact that we are able to find enough fossils to construct such a complete evolutionary tree at all is amazing in itself.

So, while geologically it may seem that the the gradation of speciation is rather sharp in places, keep in mind that the space of time between the occurance of species is likely to be at least several thousand years (when even a few hundred thousand years is, for all intents and purposes, geologically insignificant), that speciational evolution usually only occurs during sudden or siginificant environmental change and that the rarity of fossilisation means that it will be impossible to ever construct a complete evolutionary tree where can trace every single transitional form from species to species.

quote:

Nor have I seen a decent explanation of how the complexity found in some species today was evolved, when probability calculus asserts that it would require much more time than the period with life on Earth.

What complexities are you talking about? How does this "probability calculus" challenge the belief that such complexities could have evolved naturally?

quote:

I do believe that evolution is happening, and am aware that the problems outlined above are only connected to the way the hypothesis is presented to laymen. When it is put forth as a be-all and end-all explanation, I think that is wrong. And when hardcore atheistic evolutionists choose to overlook or belittle these problems the hypothesis as such looses credibility and gains an unfortunate air of religious conviction.

The trouble is that the "evidence" cited against the evolutionary theory is usually either inaccurate or formulated in ignorance of how the process actually occurs (not referring to you here btw) and thus does not have any foundation to it at all. If there were any serious complaints, with any scientific viability, that could be levelled against the evolutionary theory, then - as I said before - then we'd have a different theory and a very rich and famous dissenter. The scientific community would stand to gain nothing by protecting a theory that was innaccurate and would be giving up a rare spot in the history books by doing so. The overwhelming silence amongst the scientific community about the "fallibility" of the evolutionary theory - without wanting to seem like I'm making an appeal to authority here - should tell us something.

Now, on the other hand, if we tell school-children that "evolution is just a theory" (which is wrong), that there is evidence which contradicts the theory (which is wrong), or that there are gaps in our knowledge of the theory (which is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts) while teaching it alongside theistic theories of intelligent design, then what do you think is going to happen? Is an adolescent more likely to believe a theory that is virtually impossible to conceptualise - even amongst those knowledegable in the field - due to the vast amount of time and complex biological processes involved, or the simple, all-encompassing theory that "God just did it"? Which is easier for them to understand and which theory are they more likely to want to believe?

The trouble with teaching ID alongside the evolutionary theory - apart from the fact that there is 100 quadrillion times more evidence supporting the latter - is that you're presenting the illusion to the students that there are two competing theories (there aren't) that have equal credibility amongst the scientific community (they don't) and that are equally viable, satisfactory explantions for the origin of species (which they aren't) where one is simply - as much as it pains me to say it - easier and more comfortable to understand. While I'm never one to be dogmatic and I believe that everyone has an equal right to be heard, there are occassions such as this one - where one side of the debate is controlled by conniving, manipulative liars with an agenda to push through - that, for the good of society, the truth has to be propogated via the suppression of the opposing point of view. There is simply no way that the evolutionary theory can be taught adequately if these politically active creationsits - who subscribe to completely batshit insane theories with absolutely no basis in science whatsoever - are allowed to present the illusion that their ideas are grouded in any perceptible degree of sanity. This is not to shit on any and all deistic theories of intelligent design, just those of the young-earth Christian strain and those taught as valid, competing theories to that of evolution.

Theologies need to be kept out of the science classroom and I applaud these teachers for standing up for what is right.

oh no not another creationist thread. where's TTA?

Occrider & Renegade: This will be brief considering the usual elaborations these debates instigate, and I cannot currently follow any pointers to books/web-pages in very much detail. For that I am sorry, but I really do have a lot of work and moving related things taking up my time this month and the beginning of February. Maybe one of the other non-religious anti-Darwinism PFTAs will help me out here...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I may not be educated of the specifics of the "Popper test" but my understandng of Popper's philosophy was that logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive. I don't recall that Popper ever required that exact predictions were to be derived from theory. But what predictions were you looking for? Predictions of species mutating in a direct response to environemental conditions? I think you know that that is not what evolution dictates.

I was refering to the criterion of falsification aka Popper's solution to the problem of demarcation - figuring out what constitutes (emperical) science. In the last couple of sentences you yourself hint at the problem: The hypothesis of evolution does not allow predictions of events in the future - no matter what is predicted, and what is observed, the hypothesis is sufficiently vague and relying on imprecise notions such as fitness and randomness to allow for the alternative outcome as well. In contrast most theories proposed inside the fields of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, geology, etc. allows for deduction of specific postulates about hypothetical settings, which can then be confirmed or denied by experiments. Evolution is no more a scientific theory than Freud's "theory of the human psyche", Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts in scientific institutions, Marx theory on the worth of labour, and (all?) other frameworks in the social or humanitarian sciences. (Let me add that I do not think (much) lesser of the social and humanitarian sciences - their results are useful in many cases, but they are not science.) If you read Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations", you can read more about the thoughts leading him to the falsification criterion.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It is falsifiable though. If it were clear that genetic mutation was impossible or prohibitively rare, that the principles of natural selection could not be observed amongst living animals, or that there was no observable speciational gradiation amongst fossils in all sedimentary layers, then it is quite clear that the theory would need to be scrapped or revised. The fact is though, all these things exist as we would expect them to in the event that evolution were true. If the facts didn't fit the theory - as creationists assert - then, quite simply, we'd have a different theory that did fit the available evidence. That's how science works. ... Firstly it's a prediction of the evolutionary theory that species will not evolve other than through necessity. Animals like sharks and cockroaches, that are well adapted to their environments, have hardly changed over the past 500 million years for instance. However, when environments do change fairly drastically, we find two things in the fossil record - large scale extinction and rapid speciation. Even going back to the most recent drastic climate change just 15,000 years or so ago - the receding ice age - you'll find exactly this. Take the mammoth for instance - once the ice melted away, the niche it had filled (large, cold tundras presumably) were no longer there so, in some cases where the population was isolated for long enough, it evolved fairly rapidly through necessity (into the modern day African and Asian elephants) and in other cases it simply died off (where they once roamed freely through Europe, they no longer could once the ice shelf receded). Now keep in mind that all this occurred in the space of just a few thousand years - the blink of an eye in geological terms, where tens of millions of years of the Earth's history can be compressed into a few feet of rock.

You may have a softer interpretation of falsification than me, but I don't think that the ability of a hypothesis to fit the available evidence is sufficient to deem it falsifiable. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it should be possible to draw predictions from it and I don't see that it is possible here. The examples you have given on drastic adaptation immediately following a catastrophe and the non-evolution of sharks seems to me to be very general "predictions". I would say that they are facts that have helped form evolution rather than predictions drawn from evolutionary teachings. I mean nobody looked at evolution and said "Hey if we go examine fossils of ancient sharks they should reveal a species nearly identical to the modern one because that would be a consequence of evolution", and then came out triumphantly with a verification.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What jumps in evolution that fossil evidence has excluded? There have been quite a few transitional fossils that are indicative of "macro" evolution (as if it were any different than "micro" evolution). Simply because we don't have volumes of fossil evidence that illustrate each and every minutia of every transitional phase is hardly a gunuine counter-instance. For example in as little as 200 years ago the passenger pigeon population numbered in the tens of billions. Single flocks alone numbered in the millions. Yet as of the early 1900s the entire species became extinct. To the best of my knowledge there is not one fossil record of their existence, but does this conclusively prove the species never existed?

and

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Secondly the process of fossilisation is quite rare and only occurs under a series of specific conditions (such as rapid sedimentation) that means, depending on the sort of environment the animals were living in, some species will be very uncommon or difficult to find in the geological record. Also, much of the geological record has either been destroyed (think about all the rock that must have been weathered away or melted in the Earth's core over the past few billion years) or is completely inaccessible to human beings (we're sitting on about 8km of evolutionary history - none but the top couple of hundred metres at most are accessible to us). Therefore, the fact that we are able to find enough fossils to construct such a complete evolutionary tree at all is amazing in itself. So, while geologically it may seem that the the gradation of speciation is rather sharp in places, keep in mind that the space of time between the occurance of species is likely to be at least several thousand years (when even a few hundred thousand years is, for all intents and purposes, geologically insignificant), that speciational evolution usually only occurs during sudden or siginificant environmental change and that the rarity of fossilisation means that it will be impossible to ever construct a complete evolutionary tree where can trace every single transitional form from species to species.

I'm no expert on paleontology - nor on evolution litterature - but I can point you to a book by a Norwegian physicist and philosopher of science, Ragnar Fjelland, who by the way takes no stance on evolution: "Innf�ring i vitenskapsteori" (Introduction to the Philosophy of Science". I don't have any English sources. The book states that "fossil evidence suggests that evolution of the species have taken form of jumps" (the feeble translation of Norwegian into English by a Dane). As an example the Cambrian explosion is mentioned.
Perhaps of bigger interest to you is the book "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann is a convinced Darwinist (neo-orthodox evolutionist, hardcore atheistic evolutionist,... whatever), and he acknowledges that there appear to be jumps in the evolution of life on Earth. (He "explains" it by the way of gateway events, but they seem to rest on a foundation where "latent" genes somehow are allowed to survive several generations without giving the hosting individuals any advantages at all.)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As for probability models that negate the possibility of the complexity in species we see today, I would like to see such models.

and

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What complexities are you talking about? How does this "probability calculus" challenge the belief that such complexities could have evolved naturally?

Again I would refer you to Fjellands book, which gives a decent explanation (too long for me to quote here). He quotes the points to be based on scepticism by Robert Shapiro, Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Fred Hoyle. Basically, the point is divided into two: First, the virtual impossibility of what we call life developing through evolution, and second the practical impossibility of a population maintaining "latent" genes for enough generations to become effective through interaction with other genes. (The last point is basically what is ignored by Gell-Mann in his explanation of jumps in evolution by means of gateway events.) For clear mathematical models you would apparently have to go to Fred Hoyle's book "Mathematics of Evolution".
I did a quick googling on the names of these authors (to find english sources and refutations) and stumbled upon this site:

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/

which seems to offer a non-religious non-pro-ID balanced review of points and litterature regarding anti vs. pro Darwinism. Two pages of particular interest in this matter are

1) http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm

which reviews Hoyle's book (in what I would call an objective manner) and

2) http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm

which gives a short summary of the criticism that Hoyle's arguments have recieved so far. It is most noteworthy that his mathematical argument so far has not been tried disproved. (Also see site 1 at the very bottom, "Population genetics revisited", where �ber-Darwinist John Maynard Smith in a paper from 2000 urges others to confirm/disprove Hoyle's calculations. Indicates to me that he himself has been unable to do so.)
This brings me to:

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If there is anyone out there with a more viable scientific theory of the origin of species - or even just valid evidence of the fallibility of the current theory - then they're giving up fame and fortune by remaining quiet. ... The trouble is that the "evidence" cited against the evolutionary theory is usually either inaccurate or formulated in ignorance of how the process actually occurs (not referring to you here btw) and thus does not have any foundation to it at all. If there were any serious complaints, with any scientific viability, that could be levelled against the evolutionary theory, then - as I said before - then we'd have a different theory and a very rich and famous dissenter. The scientific community would stand to gain nothing by protecting a theory that was innaccurate and would be giving up a rare spot in the history books by doing so. The overwhelming silence amongst the scientific community about the "fallibility" of the evolutionary theory - without wanting to seem like I'm making an appeal to authority here - should tell us something.

I would say that you are a bit optimistic in this respect. If you study site 1 I linked to above, you will see that the scientific community has not taken Hoyle's points seriously. When he is quoted the focus has been on a metaphor presented on a radioshow, rather than his calculations. The book by Gell-Mann even neglects to mention Hoyle at all. To a large degree this is probably because Hoyle's alternative theory is very weak, but even so his mathematical arguments against Darwinism ought to be taken seriously, I think.
Your faith in the scientific community to objectively analyse new hypotheses, and re-evaluate old ones in the light of new arguments, is commendable, but it is very far from what I observe in my daily life (which is at a university, at conferences, and in correspondance with other researchers). Researchers are motivated by greed and pride as much as everyone else and won't accept new hypotheses unless totally clear evidence exists that the old ones were somehow at fault. In the case of evolution, the hypothesis is not falsifiable, so no argument can clearly disprove it (Hoyle's argument only make it very probable that some other mechanism, or mechanisms, is at play). Therefore scientists can hold onto evolution with no special feeling of ethical misery.
Personally, I have the feeling that some scientists hold onto evolution so dearly because most of them are atheists and it blocks out the existence of a God. Whenever the scientific community states that some phenomena are not fully explained by current theories, religious lunatics are at the ready to offer their explanations instead. If these are believed by the general public (or maybe even scientists themselves) it would open up the possibility of a return to the middle-ages where religion was a reliable source of ontology. A state of affair no scientist could ever aprove of. At least you must acknowledge that Darwinists are much more agitated by sceptism than proponents of other hypotheses in science - for some reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Now, on the other hand, if we tell school-children that "evolution is just a theory" (which is wrong), that there is evidence which contradicts the theory (which is wrong), or that there are gaps in our knowledge of the theory (which is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts) while teaching it alongside theistic theories of intelligent design, then what do you think is going to happen? Is an adolescent more likely to believe a theory that is virtually impossible to conceptualise - even amongst those knowledegable in the field - due to the vast amount of time and complex biological processes involved, or the simple, all-encompassing theory that "God just did it"? Which is easier for them to understand and which theory are they more likely to want to believe? The trouble with teaching ID alongside the evolutionary theory - apart from the fact that there is 100 quadrillion times more evidence supporting the latter - is that you're presenting the illusion to the students that there are two competing theories (there aren't) that have equal credibility amongst the scientific community (they don't) and that are equally viable, satisfactory explantions for the origin of species (which they aren't) where one is simply - as much as it pains me to say it - easier and more comfortable to understand. While I'm never one to be dogmatic and I believe that everyone has an equal right to be heard, there are occassions such as this one - where one side of the debate is controlled by conniving, manipulative liars with an agenda to push through - that, for the good of society, the truth has to be propogated via the suppression of the opposing point of view. There is simply no way that the evolutionary theory can be taught adequately if these politically active creationsits - who subscribe to completely batshit insane theories with absolutely no basis in science whatsoever - are allowed to present the illusion that their ideas are grouded in any perceptible degree of sanity. This is not to shit on any and all deistic theories of intelligent design, just those of the young-earth Christian strain and those taught as valid, competing theories to that of evolution. Theologies need to be kept out of the science classroom and I applaud these teachers for standing up for what is right.

On all of this we agree (although I don't feel the same strong hatred of the fundies as you do), and I think I said so in my initial post. My point is that evolution

1) should not be taken to be a scientific theory, and
2) it should not uncritically be assumed to explain all diversity of the species or genious "solutions" provided by Nature.

"1" because that label should be reserved for things like superstring theory, the theories on the functionality of the organs in the human body, etc. "2" because there are objections to that postulate which have not been refuted yet. (Dismissal and ridicule does not count as refutation IMO.)

EDIT: And then it turned out to be a long post anyway

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic EDIT: And then it turned out to be a long post anyway

Haha, know that feeling all too well...

Good post, response coming tomorrow.

How long do some of you PDD people spend here writing and reading?

Intellects rarely turn down an opportunity for a healthy debate and mental stimulation. Especially if their social circles don't present many opportunities?

quote:

I was refering to the criterion of falsification aka Popper's solution to the problem of demarcation - figuring out what constitutes (emperical) science. In the last couple of sentences you yourself hint at the problem: The hypothesis of evolution does not allow predictions of events in the future - no matter what is predicted, and what is observed, the hypothesis is sufficiently vague and relying on imprecise notions such as fitness and randomness to allow for the alternative outcome as well. In contrast most theories proposed inside the fields of physics, chemistry, molecular biology, geology, etc. allows for deduction of specific postulates about hypothetical settings, which can then be confirmed or denied by experiments. Evolution is no more a scientific theory than Freud's "theory of the human psyche", Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts in scientific institutions, Marx theory on the worth of labour, and (all?) other frameworks in the social or humanitarian sciences. (Let me add that I do not think (much) lesser of the social and humanitarian sciences - their results are useful in many cases, but they are not science.) If you read Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations", you can read more about the thoughts leading him to the falsification criterion.

I think when comparing evolutionary theory to other branches of science the way you do, it is certainly a bit of an unfair comparison, primarily because we are indeed dealing with a historical science that best attempts to describe past historical patterns toward what we see in the present. I think archeology would probably be a better comparison in some senses. Nevertheless, here�s a pretty long but detailed article by Wilkins on evolution and predictions. Since you seem to be a student in philosophy, it should be right up your alley:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html

Now in regards to actual predictions, that has been performed:

quote:

1. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can't consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so predictions about specifically what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely-used antibiotics. 2. The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we wouldn't have been able to say otherwise. These predictions don't have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we haven't found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort. 3. Evolution has been the basis of many predictions, for example: 1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al, 2000]. 2. Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients [Oliver et al, 2000]. 3. Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey [Yoshida et al, 2003]. 4. Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction [Webster et al., 2003]. 5. Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. Based on a detailed study, the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" [Mallatt and Chen 2003]. With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests (Bull and Wichman, 2001). 4. If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

I think the most obvious �prediction� here is the most sweeping � the fossil record. A progression of complexity is seen in the fossil record, with the simplest of organisms appearing earlier in the fossil record, and the more complex organisms appearing later. And indeed, this is exactly what we see as predicted over and over again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Or vestigial appendiges, the phylogenetic tree, ontogeny, and a number of other topics give sound prediction to evolutionary theory. For a long-winded piece on the matter, read the 29+

Evidences of Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The �fun stuff� starts here though:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

And if you want some actual examples, here�s a pretty good article from New Scientist, by Paul Rainey (paid subscription required):

quote:

4 Is evolution predictable THE late Stephen Jay Gould once famously suggested a thought experiment in which the tape of life is rewound and replayed. Would the repetition bear any resemblance to the original? Gould's answer was that it would not: each play of the tape would produce a different outcome. His answer stemmed from the fact that evolution proceeds from a continuous interplay of both random and selective forces. The existence of a random element (mutation, recombination and migration) and a stochastic component (daily chance events that determine the survival of individuals and the probability of finding a mate) suggest that evolution cannot be repeatable, predictable or even follow rules. Yet, as Darwin so clearly saw, working hand in hand with contingency is natural selection, a most potent force that systematically sorts among variant types, favouring characteristics in organisms that give them a better chance of surviving. Indeed, Darwin's theory of natural selection makes a prediction - that organisms will adapt to their environment. Importantly, though, any predictions based on Darwin's theory will be probabilistic: they require us to know the odds against particular events happening. The trouble is, we rarely do. But all is not lost. Although today's evolutionary biologists do not anticipate "laws" analogous to those in the physical sciences, as Darwin and other 19th-century biologists did, there is mounting evidence for the existence of certain fundamental rules of evolution. Our growing understanding of the mechanism of evolutionary change is providing tantalising hints that certain outcomes may be more likely than others. The evidence stems from research on topics as diverse as language and learning theory, evolutionary and developmental genetics, biochemical systems theory and metabolic network analysis. What these all have in common is their focus on establishing the basic design principles of complex systems. It is becoming clear that such systems are often assembled from combinations of a few simple modules. The loose linkage that typically exists between modules allows a huge number of possible combinations. It also ensures that different combinations of modules have a high probability of generating biologically viable scenarios. In evolutionary terms, this suggests that even though there may be a limited number of successful solutions to a particular evolutionary challenge, there may be many ways of achieving the same end. Fortunately, there is a way of testing some of these ideas. My colleagues and I study populations of the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens that rapidly diversify by mutation and selection into distinct types or "morphs" when you grow them in test tubes of nutrient broth. These experiments in test-tube evolution allow us to replay life's tape, albeit on a small scale, as often as we like. We have found that when we seed our mini-worlds with genetically identical microbes and the population size is large (around a billion cells per millilitre), each "replay" results in highly similar patterns of evolutionary change. After just one week, P. fluorescens evolves into two new morphs that we call "wrinkly" and "fuzzy" spreaders. But this doesn't happen if we limit the mutation supply rate, reducing it by more than two orders of magnitude. Evolution only repeats itself if certain phenotypic innovations have a high probability of arising and are strongly favoured by selection. By looking more closely at wrinkly spreaders, we have found that there are several different pathways to this particular morph. Although all wrinkly spreaders have a similar appearance and tendency to clump together on the surface, there is substantial variation. Genetic analysis reveals that there are many routes to becoming a wrinkly spreader, but that most are the result of simple point mutations in one of the components of a pathway that regulates the expression of adhesive factors. And the design of this pathway? It turns out to be modular with loose linkages between components: precisely the kind of genetic system we predicted would accommodate the evolution of new phenotypes, and possibly even facilitate it. If bacterial colonies that start out as identical clones evolve down different routes to reach a similar end point, what about colonies that start off as distinct? Can they converge on the same solution to an environmental challenge, or will their evolution be constrained by their genes? To test these ideas we have deleted genes encoding critical components of wrinkly spreaders and then allowed these "defective" colonies to evolve. In all instances wrinkly spreaders eventually emerge by co-opting alternative genetic systems and structural components to bring about the necessary change. So, in the face of similar selective conditions, different lineages can find similar solutions to the same problems. Replay life's tape, then, and while Homo sapiens may not evolve there is a high probability that introspective bipedal organisms with binocular vision will. Given historical contingency, it is impossible to come up with a definitive answer to Gould's thought experiment. But we can start to make predictions about the course of evolution based on our growing understanding of the fundamental architecture of biological systems and the way in which these work together under natural selection. We are already starting to predict how organisms will adapt to fit their environment. In the future we should be able to make quantitative predictions about the kinds of changes that will occur and the particular pathways leading to them http://www.newscientist.com/channel...id=PAOGLCBAAGIN

Other evolutionary predictions include fig wasps:

http://www.iob.org/editorial_displa....htm&cont_id=24

ant ancestry:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199703/0021.html

Or just do a PubMed search on �Evolutionary Predictions�, and see the primary literature yourself (at least the abstracts):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...earch&DB=pubmed

quote:

You may have a softer interpretation of falsification than me, but I don't think that the ability of a hypothesis to fit the available evidence is sufficient to deem it falsifiable. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it should be possible to draw predictions from it and I don't see that it is possible here.

Based upon this criterion of falsification, I�m curious to hear exactly what predictions could be drawn from ID �theory�. As of yet I�ve seen none whatsoever. And I�ve personally never seen the definition of falsification entailing the necessity of prediction, though I do think prediction is of importance to both evolution as well as other sciences. BTW, did you get a chance to read Arbiter�s link on evolutionary algorithms? That opens up a myriad of doors for computer programs.

quote:

The examples you have given on drastic adaptation immediately following a catastrophe and the non-evolution of sharks seems to me to be very general "predictions". I would say that they are facts that have helped form evolution rather than predictions drawn from evolutionary teachings. I mean nobody looked at evolution and said "Hey if we go examine fossils of ancient sharks they should reveal a species nearly identical to the modern one because that would be a consequence of evolution", and then came out triumphantly with a verification.

That�s a terrible oversimplification to the point of absurdity. What Renegade was stating was a mere example of predictions that could be made between the fossil record and geological history. His example is one of many examples. And if you question the relationship between geological data and the fossil record, I suggest you read this paper:

quote:

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), �mammallike reptiles� (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and �mammallike reptiles�. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), �mammallike reptiles� (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%). http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/...999SystBiol.pdf

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred.

quote:

I'm no expert on paleontology - nor on evolution litterature - but I can point you to a book by a Norwegian physicist and philosopher of science, Ragnar Fjelland, who by the way takes no stance on evolution: "Innf�ring i vitenskapsteori" (Introduction to the Philosophy of Science". I don't have any English sources. The book states that "fossil evidence suggests that evolution of the species have taken form of jumps" (the feeble translation of Norwegian into English by a Dane). As an example the Cambrian explosion is mentioned.

There are a number of very plausible reasons for historical instances such as the Cambrian Explosion (CA) which take �jumps� (if you wanna call 5 million years a �jump� in evolution I suppose). Prior to the CA, for example:

quote:

(1) a distinct fluctuation of carbon isotopes around the Proterozoic-Cambrian, (2) a dramatic increase of the d34S curve, (3) an increase of the global sea-level, (4) a distinct rise of the phosphorite production, and (5) a slow increase of oxygen in the atmosphere from late Proterozoic to early Phanerozoic times. http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeon...casu8.htm#explo

Certain �jumps� are to be expected within the theory. It�s not as if it predicts a long, gradual, drawn out accumulation of changes at ALL times. As my two collegues here touched on, a given population undergoes mutation at all times � however, the selective process (i.e. natural selection) would entail whether or not a given isolated population, or even a subpopulation would be a better survivor in a given niche. If it is, that newly population will have a much higher chance of survival; if not, it dies off and gives way for the more successful critters. And if the more successful critters were the original population with little or no morphological changes, so be it.

quote:

Perhaps of bigger interest to you is the book "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann is a convinced Darwinist (neo-orthodox evolutionist, hardcore atheistic evolutionist,... whatever), and he acknowledges that there appear to be jumps in the evolution of life on Earth. (He "explains" it by the way of gateway events, but they seem to rest on a foundation where "latent" genes somehow are allowed to survive several generations without giving the hosting individuals any advantages at all.)

I�m unfamiliar with his book, so I can�t comment on it at this time.

quote:

Again I would refer you to Fjellands book, which gives a decent explanation (too long for me to quote here). He quotes the points to be based on scepticism by Robert Shapiro, Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Fred Hoyle. Basically, the point is divided into two: First, the virtual impossibility of what we call life developing through evolution, and second the practical impossibility of a population maintaining "latent" genes for enough generations to become effective through interaction with other genes. (The last point is basically what is ignored by Gell-Mann in his explanation of jumps in evolution by means of gateway events.) For clear mathematical models you would apparently have to go to Fred Hoyle's book "Mathematics of Evolution". I did a quick googling on the names of these authors (to find english sources and refutations) and stumbled upon this site: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/ which seems to offer a non-religious non-pro-ID balanced review of points and litterature regarding anti vs. pro Darwinism. Two pages of particular interest in this matter are 1) http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm which reviews Hoyle's book (in what I would call an objective manner) and 2) http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm which gives a short summary of the criticism that Hoyle's arguments have recieved so far. It is most noteworthy that his mathematical argument so far has not been tried disproved. (Also see site 1 at the very bottom, "Population genetics revisited", where �ber-Darwinist John Maynard Smith in a paper from 2000 urges others to confirm/disprove Hoyle's calculations. Indicates to me that he himself has been unable to do so.) This brings me to:

You don�t need to go that far to find valid criticisms of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe�s calculations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

quote:

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

And that piece on Archaeopteryx:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/arc...yx/forgery.html

It should be noted that IF we are indeed referencing pieces referring to abiogenesis and NOT evolution, then we should collectively be correctly citing it as such. Confusing these two unrelated issues (abiogenesis and evolution) is a favorite ploy often performed by creationists and IDers. Why someone like Hoyle, an astronomer, felt it necessary to disprove evolution by tackling something irrelevant to evolution, i.e. abiogenesis, is beyond me. Perhaps he should have stuck to his particular field of expertise. Unsurprisingly, we find this occurring a great deal in creationist circles � folks of backgrounds unrelated to biology or paleontology cited as �experts� in their skepticism on evolution. Dig no further than Philip Johnson being a lawyer, or Bill Dembski being a mathematician. Both couldn�t be more incorrect about their understanding of evolution.

Here�s another piece involving evolution and chance:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

quote:

I would say that you are a bit optimistic in this respect. If you study site 1 I linked to above, you will see that the scientific community has not taken Hoyle's points seriously. When he is quoted the focus has been on a metaphor presented on a radioshow, rather than his calculations. The book by Gell-Mann even neglects to mention Hoyle at all. To a large degree this is probably because Hoyle's alternative theory is very weak, but even so his mathematical arguments against Darwinism ought to be taken seriously, I think.

Not if you understand the fallacies in his arguments. Again I fail to grasp why he threw abiogenesis in with evolution.

But when we actually discuss evolution, a common fallacy of creationists is to only calculate mutation rates without involving natural selection. By itself this would certainly explain such high improbabilities with evolutionary processes. Unfortunately for them, natural selection is indeed, part of the process. So indeed, when you decide to include natural selection with mutation, then you find that evolution is actually much more possible than the pessimistic creationist mathematicians would want you to believe:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=2

quote:

And something else needs to be considered about mathmatical models of past mutation events - we really don't have very good figures regarding "beneficial" mutations at all, let alone have enough worthwhile info. regarding past mutation rates and pop'n sizes. So any calculations on such past events are really more or less than inferred guesses from what we know of mutation rates today, which you seem to agree to as well. But let's take a look at Wright's calculations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...y.html#mutation Here's the equation: quote: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele. This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population. The rate of evolution is k = 2Nvu (in diploids) where k is nucleotide substitutions, N is the effective population size, v is the rate of mutation and u is the proportion of mutants that eventually fix in the population. Now let's look at the beneficial mutations: quote: Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.) So it comes down to a 2% chance of fixation. Seems pretty small at first. Well let's break it down to a hypothetical example. I can't take credit for this example, but I saved it from a blog a while back: Let's say I'm Joe Q. Organism. In my genome there's about 20,000 active gene sites, but since I have 2 copies of each chromosome, I actually have 40,000 mutatable genes. Adding up my conspecifics and me comes to one million organisms in my generation. That's 40,000,000,000 mutatable gene copies total in the gene pool. Now according to Wright, every one of those genes has about a one in 10,000 to one in 100,000 chance of mutating. Let's go halvsies so we'll estimate that each gene has a one in 45,000 (that's half of the difference between 10,000 and 100,000) chance of mutating. So far we have, on average, 888,888 mutations in the entire gene pool. Wright says that one in 1000 of those is benefical, so we have almost 900 beneficial mutations. Two percent of those will fix, so 18 beneficial mutations from that population will become permanent. 18 mutations out of one generation of one million conspecifics. Sure, that's not a lot. But in three years (for example), when this generation has hit sexual maturity, that million will have dwindled to maybe a tenth of that. Then they'll have another million children, or ten per organism. 180 of those individuals have the beneficial mutations from the last batch, and there's another 18 mutations this time. Over 500 million years, it adds up. For our hypothetical population of organisms that's 3 billion benefical mutations. And you're telling me you don't think 3 billion benefical, permanent mutations are going to constitute significant evolutionary change to a population of organisms? I hardly think so. And finally, the mutation rates measured within organisms is in line with the DNA differences seen between organisms. IOW, the rate at which mutations occur in an organism matches up with the span of time since common ancestory. Here's just one abstract that evidenced the mutation rate in fruit flies with the changes seen in the fossil record and with extant fruit fly species. The final conlusion is that the mutation rate is sufficient to result in the DNA differences we see between species: quote: Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jan;21(1):36-44. Epub 2003 Aug 29. Temporal patterns of fruit fly (Drosophila) evolution revealed by mutation clocks. Tamura K, Subramanian S, Kumar S. Center for Evolutionary Functional Genomics, Arizona Biodesign Institute, and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, USA. Drosophila melanogaster has been a canonical model organism to study genetics, development, behavior, physiology, evolution, and population genetics for nearly a century. Despite this emphasis and the completion of its nuclear genome sequence, the timing of major speciation events leading to the origin of this fruit fly remain elusive because of the paucity of extensive fossil records and biogeographic data. Use of molecular clocks as an alternative has been fraught with non-clock-like accumulation of nucleotide and amino-acid substitutions. Here we present a novel methodology in which genomic mutation distances are used to overcome these limitations and to make use of all available gene sequence data for constructing a fruit fly molecular time scale. Our analysis of 2977 pairwise sequence comparisons from 176 nuclear genes reveals a long-term fruit fly mutation clock ticking at a rate of 11.1 mutations per kilobase pair per Myr. Genomic mutation clock-based timings of the landmark speciation events leading to the evolution of D. melanogaster show that it shared most recent common ancestry 5.4 MYA with D. simulans, 12.6 MYA with D. erecta+D. orena, 12.8 MYA with D. yakuba+D. teisseri, 35.6 MYA with the takahashii subgroup, 41.3 MYA with the montium subgroup, 44.2 MYA with the ananassae subgroup, 54.9 MYA with the obscura group, 62.2 MYA with the willistoni group, and 62.9 MYA with the subgenus Drosophila. These and other estimates are compatible with those known from limited biogeographic and fossil records. The inferred temporal pattern of fruit fly evolution shows correspondence with the cooling patterns of paleoclimate changes and habitat fragmentation in the Cenozoic. (emphasis mine). www.pubmed.com

So yes, evolutionary rates are plenty possible, verifiable, and quite useful for research.

quote:

Your faith in the scientific community to objectively analyse new hypotheses, and re-evaluate old ones in the light of new arguments, is commendable, but it is very far from what I observe in my daily life (which is at a university, at conferences, and in correspondance with other researchers). Researchers are motivated by greed and pride as much as everyone else and won't accept new hypotheses unless totally clear evidence exists that the old ones were somehow at fault.

I agree that researchers have ulterior motivations, primarily $ from grants and notoriety, but this isn�t to say that new hypothesis aren�t tested on an everyday basis. Let�s also keep in mind that evolutionists test evolution on an everyday basis too. And finally, let�s also keep in mind that it would be nothing shy of a geeky scientist�s wet dream to be able to have a sound, testable, and verifiable alternative hypothesis to evolution. As of yet, none have held water.

And one has to wonder, if you know anything about Intelligent Design�s primary �base� organization � Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org), they have promised for years to aptly demonstrate research work in their field. As of yet, no sound research has been published in any of the primary literature (unless you want to discuss Meyer�s Paper in Proceedings, which has been ripped up frontways, sideways, and pissed on all over. Big brewhaha how it got there in the first place � so much that the editor who allowed it was fired). Instead, they devote their $ to �wedging� out evolution in public schools and in state BOE�s. One has to ask oneself � why haven�t they done much with research instead?

quote:

In the case of evolution, the hypothesis is not falsifiable, so no argument can clearly disprove it (Hoyle's argument only make it very probable that some other mechanism, or mechanisms, is at play).

On the contrary, there are other means that could falsify evolution, such as:
1. a static fossil record, or a fossil record that isn�t in line with evolutionary prediction (such as fossils of man and dinosaur together).
2. true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
3. a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
4. observations of organisms being created.

quote:

Therefore scientists can hold onto evolution with no special feeling of ethical misery.

I�ll try to sleep better knowing that, thanks.

quote:

Personally, I have the feeling that some scientists hold onto evolution so dearly because most of them are atheists and it blocks out the existence of a God.

I must disagree with your personal feeling, but it is one that�s commonly shared amongst creationists/IDers. Nothing could be from the truth:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Up to 40% of scientists believe in a deity of sorts who guided the process of evolution. Oh sure, it�s easy for Creationists to cite Dawkins or Haught as the pinnacle atheists speaking for evolutionists, but they fail to cite such evolutionists as Kenneth R. Miller (1999), James F. Haught, or Robert T. Pennock (1999). In fact, Miller�s �Finding Darwin�s God� and Pennock�s �Tower of Babel� happen to be 2 of my favorite books, and both guys are Christians. I highly suggest both books to anyone who�s interested in arguments against ID ideas.

We must also respect one of the most highly touted Christians out there whom has no problems at all with evolutionary theory:

The Pope.

Can�t get much higher than that.

quote:

Whenever the scientific community states that some phenomena are not fully explained by current theories, religious lunatics are at the ready to offer their explanations instead. If these are believed by the general public (or maybe even scientists themselves) it would open up the possibility of a return to the middle-ages where religion was a reliable source of ontology. A state of affair no scientist could ever aprove of. At least you must acknowledge that Darwinists are much more agitated by sceptism than proponents of other hypotheses in science - for some reason.

The reason is quite simple � there�s no verifiable, testable, falsifiable evidence that supports such religious theories. And I suppose some of that agitation is the result of these theories coming up over and over again in assorted flavors.

quote:

On all of this we agree (although I don't feel the same strong hatred of the fundies as you do), and I think I said so in my initial post. My point is that evolution 1) should not be taken to be a scientific theory, and

It has way too much evidence supporting the idea not to call it a theory. Sorry.

quote:

2) it should not uncritically be assumed to explain all diversity of the species or genious "solutions" provided by Nature.

It does rather well with this. And besides, no other explanation has come close with verifiable, testable, observable, and falsifiable evidence like evolution. Sorry again.

quote:

"1" because that label should be reserved for things like superstring theory, the theories on the functionality of the organs in the human body, etc.

Oh, you mean like antibiotic resistance (among other things I�ve mentioned previously)?

quote:

"2" because there are objections to that postulate which have not been refuted yet. (Dismissal and ridicule does not count as refutation IMO.)

Incorrect again. The onus is on the skeptical authors to :

1. Fully understand biological evolution in it�s entirety:
a. Do not confuse it with abiogenesis
b. Understand the mutation mechanism
c. Understand the natural selection mechanism

These criterion were not met by Hoyle.

quote:

EDIT: And then it turned out to be a long post anyway

It happens.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Intellects rarely turn down an opportunity for a healthy debate and mental stimulation. Especially if their social circles don't present many opportunities?

Your mama.

The sticker should instead say "evolution, its a theory...in progress". Most evolutionary, phylogenetic classification is a work in progress, which is why new versions of texts get released as the classification of animals and evolutionary theory gets revised.

quote:

2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life

thats cuz the other rival ideas about the beginnings of life are based on faith and belief and not science. thats what religion class is for, you stupid parents.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Thanks for bringing that up. That is great news. The fundies are about to get another bitchslapping in Dover, PA pretty soon here too. There's a big reason why the ID institutions like Discovery.org are backing off there - it's lookin' more and more like they just might label ID as "creationism" in the courts. If that happens, the '87 Supreme Court case will deem it illegal to teach ID anywhere in the science classroom (they ruled creationism = religion). All positive outlooks, but it would be foolish to underestimate the fundy movement.

Aww, Opey, I thought you liked ID?

Perhaps I was thinking of someone else...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Aww, Opey, I thought you liked ID? Perhaps I was thinking of someone else...

I like debating against ID, but I would not advocate ID either as a science or to be taught in the science classrooms. At least not yet.

I say that because ID has not moved passed the hypothetical stage, nor has it verified in any manner the functional mechanism. If it can accomplish these critical factors, it can become a little more plausible as an explanation.

But that's about as optimistic as you'll ever hear me get with it. It's not difficult to point out the obvious motives of current IDers right now, however, and I don't think that helps their cause much at all. The Discovery Institute, for example, which most folks from both sides of the argument agree is the "flagship" of ID thought advocated a "Wedge Project", which circulated quickly online a few years back but is no longer on their website, stated the following:

quote:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." http://www.infidels.org/secular_web...1999/wedge.html

Now bearing this in mind, you must also remember that IDers will almost ALWAYS state that their theory has nothing to do with religious belief in any way. They state this for a good reason - the 1987 Supreme Court ruling against religious belief (i.e. creationism) being taught in the science classrooms. However this "Wedge Project" states pretty much exactly the opposite of what they continually contend. The story continues on this Wedge doctrine:

quote:

The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the intelligent design movement. The Center hopes that more Christian scientists will step forward and engage in research that would support the intelligent design theory. Phase II, "Publicity and Opinion-Making" involves communicating the research of Phase I. The Center plans to do this through book tours, opinion-making conferences, apologetics seminars, a teacher training program, use of opinion-editorials in newspapers, television program productions (either with Public Broadcasting or another broadcaster), and the printing of publications to distribute. Phases I and II are to be implemented over the next five years (1999-2003). Phase II is "to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being 'merely academic.' Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture." Phase III, "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal" begins sometime in 2003 and may take as long as twenty years to complete. It involves three things: (1) "Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences"; (2) "Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training"; and (3) "Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities". The white paper describes Phase III as the renewal phase because it seeks to fill the void left behind by materialistic evolution (attacked in Phase II) with its own intelligent design model: "Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences." http://www.infidels.org/secular_web...1999/wedge.html

Now I do give them credit for lacing the word "scientific" in this Project every now and then. But as I've stated before, their research leaves much to be desired. In fact, it's quite scant. And the reason for this is again - nothing testable, verifiable, observable, and falsifiable can be utilized by this "theory", and if there is no mechanism to explain the events in detail, there is no sound explanation of the phenomena at all. This must occur first before this ID idea moves any further into the scientific realm. And I must stress that scientists do not care one bit where or by whom develops the hypotheticals, whether it be fundy Christians, fundy Buddhists, fundy atheists, or whoever. They just want to be able to test, verify, and observe the phenomena and be able to explain such phenomena via a viable mechanism. Nothing more.


P.S. "Opey"? Lovely petname, dear.

It appears I may have been a little incorrect in my assumptions of Hoyle's new book, "Mathematics of Evolution". In essence, he was not directly tackling the abiogenesis question and labelling it as an "evolution" problem. Rather, it seems he was more or less tackling the so-called "macroevolutionary" scenario. As it seems, at least from this critique, he evidently missed the mark completely on his premises and conclusions, much of it a result of his lack of understanding of evolutionary research and theory. This paragraph is interesting to me:

quote:

Of course, Hoyle's statement does not just come out of thin air, but is based on some good mathematical reasoning (at least, as far as I could tell). However, like all mathematics when applied to real life problems, it is as good as the assumptions on which it is based�and these assumptions reveal little knowledge of biology. The underlying premise of Hoyle"s "demonstration" of the ineffectiveness of natural selection is that there are more mutations with negative or even lethal effects than there are mutations with positive effects. This, coupled with another of Hoyle's fundamental assumptions, that living organisms are so complex and finely tuned that any change in their machinery is overwhelmingly more likely to cause damage than benefit, leads to his conclusion that evolution by natural selection cannot possibly work. There are two problems with this reasoning. First, biologists have known now for decades that most mutations are neither positive nor negative, but neutral or quasi-neutral. This leaves much more room for natural selection to maneuver than in the tight scenario adopted by Hoyle. The reason for such a surprising amount of neutrality of mutational effects is related to the second problem embedded in Hoyle's argument: organisms are not designed according to stringent engineering principles where every part has to work exactly in a particular manner and interact with precision with all other parts. Rather, living beings are put together in a rather loose way, with a lot of redundancy and suboptimal design, exactly as one would expect if they were the result of a natural process instead of an intelligent designer. Modern molecular developmental biology, entirely ignored in Hoyle's book, has clearly demonstrated that genetic redundancy and sub-optimality are a universal characteristics of life on Earth. http://www.skeptic.com/archives44.html

So his two-fold problem is:
1. He believes detrimental mutation rates occur too often for evolution to occur

2. Misunderstanding the process of evolution itself, and attempting to relate to it by "humanizing" it - i.e. engineers creating a machine from scratch.

#1 is well explained away through research and through a simple understanding of mutation rates, as I explained here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?

#2 is a common fallacy of nonbiologists, i.e. "hard science" folks like mathmaticians and engineers attempting to tackle a biological question. If I had a dime for every time I've ran across an IDer who turns out to be an engineer who misunderstands evolution.....

So if one refuses to understand and read the research pertaining to evolution, esp. the mechanism of evolution, as Hoyle has clearly done here, how could his conclusions pertaining to evolution be sound?

The rest of the critique is pretty interesting, if anyone wishes to read further.

Ummmm I guess anything I have to say at this point would be superfluous so I'm just going to sit over there ---->

and keep my yap shut.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummmm I guess anything I have to say at this point would be superfluous so I'm just going to sit over there ----> and keep my yap shut.

Yeah, I was just thinking about adding something but Opus pretty much covered it all...

How long til we start getting super human powers?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think when comparing evolutionary theory to other branches of science the way you do, it is certainly a bit of an unfair comparison, primarily because we are indeed dealing with a historical science that best attempts to describe past historical patterns toward what we see in the present. I think archeology would probably be a better comparison in some senses.

I do not consider archeology nor any other historical science as science. I thought that was quite clear from my previous post where I lumped all work in the social and humanitarian sciences into the non-scientific category. Furthermore, scientific theories has as part of their essence that they should be usable no matter where or when in the universe you apply them. If evolution (also meaning evolution through mutation and natural selection in this post) is only describing what has taken place on Earth in the past, then it is a further incentive not to label it as scientific.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Nevertheless, here�s a pretty long but detailed article by Wilkins on evolution and predictions. Since you seem to be a student in philosophy, it should be right up your alley: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html

I'm not a student of philosophy, but I do know enough about argumentation techniques to recognize good and bad texts when I see them. I think this reference is pretty awful, in essence relabelling explanation of past events by "retrodiction" and then claiming that it's the same as prediction. Some of the other pages you referred to from the same site are also badly argued, with selective quoting of the arguments of others, loaded language, and red herrings.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now in regards to actual predictions, that has been performed: ...[lots of examples of "retrodictions"]

Here are some "predicitions" courtesy of evolution:

As the application of antibiotics in humans and animals is increased, the populations of bacteria should become resistant to it.

As "natural habitats" of some species are gradually destroyed by humans, we should see the species evolving to meet the requirements/utilize the benefits of the new surroundings.

As farmers use pesticide on their fields, we should see evolution of new species of parasite from the old ones.

None of these happens in a large scale, even though we can argue that evolution predicts them to. However, as evolution rests on all too many uncertainties we do not dismiss it as falsified. Maybe that gives a clue as to what I mean by falsification? It may be that I have not been sufficiently clear in my explanation of Popper's ideas. Anyway, he continuously emphasizes that the conjectures we accept as theories should be made in boldness, with bold predictions being deducable from them. A bold prediction would be something like "under the following settings we should observe that 30% of chemical X is absorbed by chemical Y", "the particle X exists, and we should be able to observe it using technique Y under the settings Z", or "the spin of the boson X that we will measure tonight in the accelerator will be Y".

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Based upon this criterion of falsification, I�m curious to hear exactly what predictions could be drawn from ID �theory�.

Why the strawman? I haven't advocated ID, nor creationism. Please do not read any more into my posts than what is there. I'll reiterate my position just once more, and if someone still is confused about what I mean (the original question posed by occrider, which I - so far in vain - have tried to answer) then so be it: I do believe that evolution is happening. I do not advocate ID, creationism, life from space, or any other replacing or augmenting hypothesis. According to my philosophy evolution is not a scientific theory, and will never achieve the same status as, say, the theory of relativity by me. The reason for that is that it is not falsifiable in my sense of the word. Furthermore, I think that evolution cannot itself explain the entire history of life on Earth. I do not propose any concrete mechanism or mechanisms to augment or replace evolution is explainer of this history, but I think that scientists should be much more open on the problems that is still to be tackled. I feel that some scientists are throwing overboard credibility in their stupid war on creationists by not being totally honest about the status of evolution as explainer of all.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 BTW, did you get a chance to read Arbiter�s link on evolutionary algorithms? That opens up a myriad of doors for computer programs.

I work within computer science/mathematics, and we frequently use GAs to search hypothesis spaces. I have myself supervised several student projects on application of GAs, so - at this specific point - I do claim that I am knowledgeable. However, GAs (due to the large number of problems they have so far not been succesful at solving) have undergone quite a development since their initial imitation of evolution. Today mechanisms are in place that allow for individuals to pass accumulated "knowledge" on to their offspring, distributes individuals into sub-populations according to their behavioural traits, etc. all in recognition of the basic operators of evolutionary operators are too weak, and that guidance is needed. Of course, this does not in itself speak about the need for "guidance" in the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That�s a terrible oversimplification to the point of absurdity. What Renegade was stating was a mere example of predictions that could be made between the fossil record and geological history.

Of course it's an oversimplification. It was meant as a means to illustrate how Renegade and I differ in our perception of what a "prediction" is. I didn't in any way try to insult him, and I think that he knows that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There are a number of very plausible reasons for historical instances such as the Cambrian Explosion (CA) which take �jumps� (if you wanna call 5 million years a �jump� in evolution I suppose). ... Certain �jumps� are to be expected within the theory. It�s not as if it predicts a long, gradual, drawn out accumulation of changes at ALL times.

As I stated I do not claim to be an expert on paleontology, but only had the Norwegian book to refer to. However, the review you quoted in your fourth post (the one from skeptic.com) also mentions that evolution ought to happen in a continuous slow pace. Your's and Renegade's points on why evolution accelerates when environments change sound plausible, though I don't see why evolution should grind to a near halt when that's not the case. But once again, my main beef is with the "scientific theory" part of the matter - not the specific arguments concerning deficiancies of evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I�m unfamiliar with his book, so I can�t comment on it at this time.

I haven't read it either - only the mixture of his points with that of Shapiro in the Norwegian book, and then from reviews on the net. Anyway a lot of what you wrote was rendered obsolete by the following:

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It appears I may have been a little incorrect in my assumptions of Hoyle's new book, "Mathematics of Evolution". In essence, he was not directly tackling the abiogenesis question and labelling it as an "evolution" problem. Rather, it seems he was more or less tackling the so-called "macroevolutionary" scenario. As it seems, at least from this critique, he evidently missed the mark completely on his premises and conclusions, much of it a result of his lack of understanding of evolutionary research and theory. This paragraph is interesting to me: So his two-fold problem is: 1. He believes detrimental mutation rates occur too often for evolution to occur 2. Misunderstanding the process of evolution itself, and attempting to relate to it by "humanizing" it - i.e. engineers creating a machine from scratch. #1 is well explained away through research and through a simple understanding of mutation rates, as I explained here: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php? #2 is a common fallacy of nonbiologists, i.e. "hard science" folks like mathmaticians and engineers attempting to tackle a biological question. If I had a dime for every time I've ran across an IDer who turns out to be an engineer who misunderstands evolution..... So if one refuses to understand and read the research pertaining to evolution, esp. the mechanism of evolution, as Hoyle has clearly done here, how could his conclusions pertaining to evolution be sound? The rest of the critique is pretty interesting, if anyone wishes to read further.

What is happening here is that we leave the definition of evolution I have been sticking to throughout my posts. What the review - and you - actually say is that Hoyle is at fault because he doesn't take into account genetic redundancy and sub-optimality. The review concedes that Hoyle is right in pointing out that there is a problem in explaining macro evolution, but rejects his own explanation (the outer space one), and suggests other - more plausible - mechanisms at play. I didn't know about the hypotheses on "mixed model on evolution" and "lateral gene transfer", but they sound interesting. However, you do realise that these are somewhat beyond "evolution through mutation and natural selection"? At least, I don't expect them to be tought in standard text books on evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But when we actually discuss evolution, a common fallacy of creationists is to only calculate mutation rates without involving natural selection. By itself this would certainly explain such high improbabilities with evolutionary processes. Unfortunately for them, natural selection is indeed, part of the process. So indeed, when you decide to include natural selection with mutation, then you find that evolution is actually much more possible than the pessimistic creationist mathematicians would want you to believe.: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=2 Now let's look at the beneficial mutations: So it comes down to a 2% chance of fixation. Seems pretty small at first. Well let's break it down to a hypothetical example. I can't take credit for this example, but I saved it from a blog a while back: Let's say I'm Joe Q. Organism. In my genome there's about 20,000 active gene sites, but since I have 2 copies of each chromosome, I actually have 40,000 mutatable genes. Adding up my conspecifics and me comes to one million organisms in my generation. That's 40,000,000,000 mutatable gene copies total in the gene pool. Now according to Wright, every one of those genes has about a one in 10,000 to one in 100,000 chance of mutating. Let's go halvsies so we'll estimate that each gene has a one in 45,000 (that's half of the difference between 10,000 and 100,000) chance of mutating. So far we have, on average, 888,888 mutations in the entire gene pool. Wright says that one in 1000 of those is benefical, so we have almost 900 beneficial mutations. Two percent of those will fix, so 18 beneficial mutations from that population will become permanent. 18 mutations out of one generation of one million conspecifics. Sure, that's not a lot. But in three years (for example), when this generation has hit sexual maturity, that million will have dwindled to maybe a tenth of that. Then they'll have another million children, or ten per organism. 180 of those individuals have the beneficial mutations from the last batch, and there's another 18 mutations this time. Over 500 million years, it adds up. For our hypothetical population of organisms that's 3 billion benefical mutations. And you're telling me you don't think 3 billion benefical, permanent mutations are going to constitute significant evolutionary change to a population of organisms? I hardly think so. And finally, the mutation rates measured within organisms is in line with the DNA differences seen between organisms. IOW, the rate at which mutations occur in an organism matches up with the span of time since common ancestory. Here's just one abstract that evidenced the mutation rate in fruit flies with the changes seen in the fossil record and with extant fruit fly species. The final conlusion is that the mutation rate is sufficient to result in the DNA differences we see between species:

This long piece of calculation is based on an important assumption: That each positive mutation is reflected in natural selection, so that the individuals possesing the positive trait is more likely to reproduce. However, that is exactly the assumption that Hoyle contests. The following is a snippet from the review I linked to in my third post, so it may be familiar reading:

quote:

How far does the neo-Darwinian theory work? The largest part of the book consists of calculations of the core claims of neo-Darwinism: evolution works by the selection of rare advantageous mutations. These are the questions traditionally answered by population genetics. Studying the textbooks (Fisher) he got mad and calculated it all from scratch! The questions he tries to answer: * Can rare advantageous mutations indeed become established in a population, in the face of a flood of disadvantageous mutations? If so, how fast? At what costs? * What is the effect of population size and generation time of organisms involved? * What is the effect of asexual opposed to sexual reproduction? * How severe must selection be to have effect? * How long will it take that a population accumulates so many small deleterious mutations, that it will go extinct? My training in mathematics doesn't permit me to evaluate Hoyle's calculations. I hope professional population geneticists will check Hoyle's results. Nevertheless it's easy to notice if the outcomes contradict or confirm standard textbook knowledge. Hoyle builds up a tension: it is not easy to get rid of all the bad mutations, let alone to improve a species! His calculations culminate in the result that mutation and natural selection can only find advantageous protein variants at most two base substitutions separated from the current status. That means that if 'only' 4 - 6 substitutions (9) are necessary to transform one enzyme into another, although a small number, this is still forbidden by neo-Darwinism according to Hoyle. These are the limits of the power of natural selection to change existing genes. In orthodox neo-Darwinism there are no such limits. "What the mathematics shows is that nineteenth- century biologists were correct as long as they remained within the range of practical experience. Where the situation went wrong was in making a huge extrapolation ..." (p108). So Hoyle arrives at rather pessimistic conclusions compared with the usual optimistic textbook view. Next it is a small step for Hoyle to claim that the protein histone-4 could never be produced in small steps. Why? Histone-4 has a chain of 102 amino acids and the structure is extremely conserved in all eukaryote species (16). Bovine histone-4 differs in only 2 positions with peas! And that means extreme functional constraints must exist (17). Histones are necessary for chromosome condensation during cell division. The traditional neo-Darwinian step-by-step method must fail claims Hoyle, because it implies 100 non-functional steps. The alternative: a jump of 100 mutations of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable. The histone-4 case is in fact a case of Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity long before Behe published his Darwin's Black Box, since the hand-written version of Mathematics of Evolution was 'published' in 1987. Hoyle is an Intelligent Design Theorist 'avant-la-lettre'. What makes Hoyle different is that he doesn't talk about 'the supernatural' and the 3-letter word. Hoyle indignantly rejects Neo-Darwinists' "retreat in the unknowable and untestable" (p103), when they claim that histone-4 historically had a different function and so could evolve stepwise. Hoyle would be right if evolutionists just claimed it without doing research. But the question is open to further investigation. Evidence can and has been collected. Histone-precursors can be found in ancient bacteria Archaea (5). However the origin of histones is far from solved. This is not reported in the textbooks. It isn't even mentioned, let alone recognised as a difficult problem (7). On the other hand: does Hoyle seriously believe that histone-4 came hidden in a meteorite and incoporated itself into every eukaryotic cell? Is that itself not a "retreat in the unknowable and untestable"? More generally speaking: why does extraterrestrial evolution escape the problems that evolution encounters on Earth? More time? More space? Favourable conditions? Tell me!

It's also the same problem that Gell-Mann avoids/skips in his book by refering to gateway events: When a lot of mutations is required to go from one state to the other, and none of them brings any fitnes advantages individually, then the transition is very improbable. It may be that the mixed model or lateral gene transfer can in some way explain this, but as of now, I deem it unresolved - and at least unexplained by the definition of evolution I have used in this thread, and which I dare say is the layman perception of evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I agree that researchers have ulterior motivations, primarily $ from grants and notoriety, but this isn�t to say that new hypothesis aren�t tested on an everyday basis. Let�s also keep in mind that evolutionists test evolution on an everyday basis too. And finally, let�s also keep in mind that it would be nothing shy of a geeky scientist�s wet dream to be able to have a sound, testable, and verifiable alternative hypothesis to evolution. As of yet, none have held water.

Agree with your text, but not what I expect to be the implication of your last sentence: That we should accept evolution as explaining everything because no other hypothesis explains it better. I'd rather that there exists within the scientific community clear awareness of what areas are yet to be considered fully understood.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And one has to wonder, if you know anything about Intelligent Design�s primary �base� organization � Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org), they have promised for years to aptly demonstrate research work in their field. As of yet, no sound research has been published in any of the primary literature (unless you want to discuss Meyer�s Paper in Proceedings, which has been ripped up frontways, sideways, and pissed on all over. Big brewhaha how it got there in the first place � so much that the editor who allowed it was fired). Instead, they devote their $ to �wedging� out evolution in public schools and in state BOE�s. One has to ask oneself � why haven�t they done much with research instead?

Again the strawman. How do you expect me to defend ID when I don't sympathize with it?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I�ll try to sleep better knowing that, thanks.

Insolent sarcasm really doesn't further your points nor reputation.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I must disagree with your personal feeling, but it is one that�s commonly shared amongst creationists/IDers. Nothing could be from the truth: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Up to 40% of scientists believe in a deity of sorts who guided the process of evolution. Oh sure, it�s easy for Creationists to cite Dawkins or Haught as the pinnacle atheists speaking for evolutionists, but they fail to cite such evolutionists as Kenneth R. Miller (1999), James F. Haught, or Robert T. Pennock (1999). In fact, Miller�s �Finding Darwin�s God� and Pennock�s �Tower of Babel� happen to be 2 of my favorite books, and both guys are Christians. I highly suggest both books to anyone who�s interested in arguments against ID ideas. We must also respect one of the most highly touted Christians out there whom has no problems at all with evolutionary theory: The Pope. Can�t get much higher than that.

Just because a scientist believe in God, that doesn't mean that he is willing to let religious interpretations and conjectures enter into the corpus of science. Sort of like that you can be a secularist and still practicing a religion.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.