|
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Well, pretty much just some prediction of the value of some hitherto unknown variable, which we *know* we will be able to measure/read within the span of some ten years. Whether the actual variable in question regards causal manifestations from years back is of no consequence. However, I want a prediction which the vast majority of Darwinists would be ready to bet their conviction on: If the reading turns out to be different from the predicted value they must all be prepared to state that evolution through natural selection cannot be seen as the only mechanism for determining the varieties of life on Earth. Ok? |
Good enough. I might have mentioned this in my earlier conversation with you, but such convictions by researchers are tested on a daily basis (hence the quick scan in PubMed giving rise to testing out evolutionary predictions so readily). These tests are done so often ad nauseum that it has become an easy conviction to make. That's not to say, of course, that alternative predictions have come about - this occurs all the time in any scientific field. But the beauty of those unpredictable outcomes is that other mitigating factors are revealed that have come into play. Those mitigating factors, however, are not always explained right away. In fact, often the case arises in which those mitigating factors reveal themselves years if not decades down the road. And the kicker of it really is such factors settle down neatly into the evolutionary theory quite well.
Now one other thing to mention - this is also not to say that the theory doesn't get tweaked here and there. Just like any theory, new discoveries modify the theory to a better understanding. However, the CORE MECHANISM of the theory of evolution, namely that things change over time via mutation and natural selection has not changed. And that core mechanism has held up over time extraordinarily well.
I'm no geneticist (well a very novel one at best), but in speaking with one of my instructors on the matter (she's a molecular biologist specializing in Diabetes), this is essentially the field of molecular biology in a nutshell.
| quote: | | Basically, it doesn't matter much to me. In principle, however, the hypothesis should be prepared to give predictions on all areas it claims explanative power on. |
To which I contend this is exactly what evolution does, not just on future predictions but on basic predictions regarding key missing elements that should be present in a given timeline in the past. This explanation I posted describes it well:
| quote: | Nice post. I liked this one in particular:
Unfortunately, the very fact that the theory survived for nearly a hundred years - as a correct explanation, rather than a model - puts it beyond my definition of bold conjecture (how can it be bold when no-one will face up to the consequences?). |
Well that's an interesting point, one that does bear a bit of a historical perspective on the theory itself. I would like to claim that a number of abundant other predictions were made in that time period prior to the 1950's, but that would require me to get out a few biographies and take a gander at that period. Unfortunately with my current school load that's not going to happen anytime soon, at least until October when I start up clinical rotations again. But you've touched my interest on this so I'll make a note of that when I have some time to scrutinize it further.
| quote: | I also liked this one
However, I doubt a Darwinist to abandon his beliefs if such pairs of fossils were ever discovered. It seems like there are too many things that could have gone wrong (i.e. the findings can be explained away too easily). |
Actually that has happened, and it's also one of the bigger creationist myths - finding two or more sets of bones from critters that don't correspond well with the evolutionary timeline. But a quick knowledge on geology 101 always ends up revealing explanations from those mitigating factors I mentioned before. Things such as techtonic plate movements, continental drift, glacial retreat, and so on come into play that end up easily explaining in detail such discrepencies. And again that's the beauty about evolutionary theory - eventually these factors actually end up falling into the theory quite well, and for added bonus pleasure you have a correspondence of another scientific field such as geology that correlates well with an evolutionary timeline of events.
| quote: | About this:
How would you go about proving something like this? |
Ahh, good question. Perhaps it's really more of a philosophical one. It goes back to the argument about attempting to falsify tests for natural selection. Let me post the entire paragraph that has this statement:
| quote: | Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structures of others. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other animals, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. Although many statements may be found in works on natural history to this effect, I cannot find even one which seems to me of any weight. It is admitted that the rattlesnake has a poison-fang for its own defence, and for the destruction of its prey; but some authors suppose that at the same time it is furnished with a rattle for its own injury, namely, to warn its prey. I would almost as soon believe that the cat curls the end of its tail when preparing to spring, in order to warn the doomed mouse. It is a much more probable view that the rattlesnake uses its rattle, the cobra expands its frill, and the puff-adder swells whilst hissing so loudly and harshly, in order to alarm the many birds and beasts which are known to attack even the most venomous species. Snakes act on the same principle which makes the hen ruffle her feathers and expand her wings when a dog approaches her chickens; but I have not space here to enlarge on the many ways by which animals endeavour to frighten away their enemies.
http://www.bartleby.com/11/6008.html |
So the question becomes how would a given species survive if it somehow produced a feature that was somehow advantageous for another species versus itself, such as a predator for that species in question or a similar species in competition for food/water/land sources as some examples. I think the answer is an obvious one that really didn't necessarily need a mention: if such an advantage was given, that species would not survive because its adaptation via mutation and natural selection was not really an advantage - it was a DISadvantage because it ultimately it becomes extinct either through predation or through competition. And to this we can examine extinct species and see exactly where they "went wrong", if you will, or where their given adaptations turned out not to be so advantageous for them.
So if the question is how could one examine this and see if a given adaptive trait is somehow more advantageous for another species versus that species itself, I would contend that entails extinction. If, however, we see some sort of trait that isn't advantageous AND THAT SPECIES is thriving well despite giving the advantage to either its competition or predator(s), and if that trait somehow tips the scales of any or all other possible advantageous traits, then I would say that would be a means of disproving evolutionary processes. For some reason the cheetah comes to mind - it's fast as hell and can run up to 70 mph to kill its prey. However, the disadvantage is that it uses up all it's energy to catch and kill the animal - afterwards it's completely wasted and can barely move. If that cheetah is in an environment where it's competitors are abundant it cannot escape with it's food after a kill, that cheetah's toast and would likely over time become extinct (now granted, the cheetah is becoming extinct, but I think we can agree that the mitigating factor of human involvement has much to do with this). So if the cheetah's disadvantage is too much of an advantage for other creatures to chase off the cheetah or even kill it after a catch (say a group of lions), well then it's advantage of being fast will not outweigh the serious disadvantage of being toast from lactic acid buildup and muscle fatigue afterwards and it will likely either die off into extinction OR move elsewhere to a place of less competition.
I think my whole point to that story is it's not necessarily a black/white issue or like turning on/off a lightswitch on advantage/disadvantage, more like a dimmer switch on which one outweighs the other.
| quote: | As to the PubMed abstracts, I'm afraid I didn't understand them just by "scanning". I mean, do you expect an opening paragraph like "The interaction of non-covalently bound monomeric protein subunits forms oligomers." to be of any kind of meaning to a non-biologist? I'm not even sure if "forms" really *is* the verb.  |
Sorry about that. That came across as a link bomb but was not my intention. My whole point about posting those is how readily available current data is on testing evolutionary theory and predictions every day. It's really quite remarkable how often such predictions on things like amino acid structures come to fruition.
| quote: | | I guess we're at odds at this one. I thought that neo-Darwinism's main tenet is that *all* natural evolution is due to natural selection and mutation? |
Quite right, and that mechanism of mutation and natural selection is HOW new functions, organs, etc. come to fruition via modification from existing functions or genes over time. Sorry if that wasn't more clear.
| quote: | HTH?  |
I need to stop posting that - I've been asked too many times what it means. Sorry, "Hope That Helps" 
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
