Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Excerpt. Story follows: Los Angeles Times
They should report their failures, or they aren't doing what I would call science. If in fact they've made predictions but those predictions don't work, or they've constructed falsifications and the falsifications end up contradicting their hypothesis they owe it to the rest of us to admit it. But I see no evidence of any of this from the IDers.
In fact all I see from the IDers is Paleys failed argument (after Aquinus) resurrected into modern scientific-seeming garb, and sniping at evolution's unsolved problems (lets face it, there are always going to be gaps). Real scientists are out there solving the problems. Like resolving the bloodclot cascade and the bacterial flagellum, not just shouting "God Did It!", and giving up.
No. It took millions of years of evolution.
It could just be a feeble joke on his part, I guess.
What those experiments showed was not that a new species would result but that small changes in a gene can produce large changes in morphology. Because most morphological changes from small gene changes are imperceptible, they ended up creating larger genetic changes to enable them to observe larger saltative morphological changes. Although speciation is generally considered to be a cessation in gene flow between two groups, had the individual flies survived, we would have considered those with four wings instead of two to be a different species, simply based on morphology.
"I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).
"The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.
The problem with these arguments is the difference between the creationist definition of a species and the scientific definition of species. A good working definition is the cessation of gene flow. This stoppage of gene flow does not necessarily have to be a physical inability to have fertile offspring but can be where two populations for some other reason, simply do not interbreed.
This is seen in a number of ring species where two subspecies share the same geographical region and could produce fertile offspring but do not interbreed. A good example of this is the Asian Greenish Warbler where the two subspecies farthest from the origin could genetically have fertile offspring but do not recognize each other as members of the same breeding group. Their markings and songs are just too different.
"But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.
If plants are considered (as they should be) speciation has occurred in the lab, more than once. PatrickHenry's 'List-O-Links' has some good links to examples of this.
"Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.
They can if you use the definition of species that science uses rather than the unrealistic definition creationists use.
There are aspects of evolution that are as imprecise as economics, and for the same reason. You can't predict the future in detail. Natural selection, as an idea, got its start from the ideas of the Scottish economists like Adam Smith. The basic thought is that the marketplace brings order out of chaos, and that the most efficient economy occurs when there is an absence of central planning.
This is an imprecise formulation, and many general science writers extend it into areas where it doesn't belong.
Common descent, however is extremely precise in its formulation, and coupled with molecular biology, is as rigorous as physics. There's a lot of detailed work yet to be done, but common descent is continuously on the line, every time a new genome is mapped.
I suppose if one makes it a daily point to keep his head buried in the sand, you'll never have to deal with reality? Have you ever read a real science book or is bogus pseudo science good enough for you?
LOL
The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.
That's an outright falsehood. All science is subject to peer review. All data is tested with skepticism, even if it would appear to support the scientist's original theses. This is why the evolution hoaxes have all been uncovered by scientists.
If creationists had such a high burden for their information, sites like "Answers in Genesis" would have run out of things to publish years ago.
I was trying to get the poster I was responding to to realize that the laws of physics are never broken and are not similar to legal laws in any way.
Evolution can be considered a law of nature in that it invariably affects all organisms on a continuing basis. It is not a human construct. The ToE, which is a human construct, is not a law, nor has anyone stated such.
S'OK. I was posting for the lurkers.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
They'd still have some funny cartoon strips.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
"Well Watson chose to bring up the subject of DNA in an article on Darwin. Now we can't ask how it evolved? Also doesn't DNA's ability to replicate itself depend on RNA and how did these two co-evolve?"
Of course you can ask how DNA "evolved". But DNA wasn't identified as the carrier of genetic information until long after Darwin. All DNA work supports Evolution.
Strictly speaking, at least in procaryotes, DNA replication does not involve dependence on RNA, unless you consider that all cell processes are RNA dependent in a very indirect manner (in this case it is indirect since the DNA polymerase is a protein and involves rRNA, tRNA and mRNA to produce the enzyme, but the actual replication of DNA can be done in a test tube with only DNA polymerase and a DNA template and the appropriate nucleotides in the right form).
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries
1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2-The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3-A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
4-A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
5- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
It's good that you put in bold face the definition of 'theory' that is least relevant to the theory of evolution. Sometimes people get confused about such things.
Another candidate for The List-O-Links, in the "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM" section.
You might consider a book on this subject. You might be able to get it published.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.