Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our ears once breathed [evolution of ears]
Nature Magazine ^ | 18 January 2006 | Helen Pearson

Posted on 01/18/2006 6:10:34 PM PST by PatrickHenry

Our ears could have started evolutionary life as a tube for breathing, say scientists, after examining the ancestral structure in a 370-million-year-old fossil fish.

Evolutionary biologists are intrigued by how complicated sensory organs evolved from structures that may have had completely different uses in ancestral creatures. The bony structures in ancient fish, which at some point turned into ears, for example, appear to have had mainly a structural function, bracing the cheek and holding up the jaw. How exactly they made the transition to their role in hearing has proved a bit of a mystery.

The ear is a relatively easy organ to study. Its evolving bones have been preserved as fossils, whereas the soft tissues of other specialized features, such as eyes and noses, have long decayed.

So Martin Brazeau and Per Ahlberg of Uppsala University in Sweden decided to take a close look at the ear-like features of an ancient, metre-long monster from the Latvian Natural History Museum in Riga. Panderichthys was a fish, but is thought to be closely related to the earliest four-limbed tetrapods that eventually climbed on to land and gave rise to modern vertebrates.

The researchers examined Panderichthys and found that the bony structures in its head combine features of fish and tetrapods, capturing a snapshot of evolution in action. "It's neat to see that transition," says Hans Thewissen who studies the evolution of the ear and other organs at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown.

Half-way house

Ancient fish have a narrow channel from the roof of the skull into the mouth, known as a spiracle, which is bounded by a long bone known as the hyomandibula that braces the cheek. In tetrapods, the equivalent bone is stubbier, a step towards the stirrup-like stapes bone that helps to transmit sound waves into our skulls.

The team found that Panderichthys has a wide, straight spiracle rather than a narrow one, and a shortened hyomandibula. They report their findings in Nature1.

Some have previously speculated that our ancient ears may have had a role in breathing.

On the basis of this new fossil evidence, the team speculates that the widened spiracle may have served Panderichthys much like the breathing holes used by modern-day sharks and rays. These allow the fish to inhale water over their gills while lying on the seabed, and avoid gulping in grit through the mouth.

The demonstration of an organ evolving provides tangible evidence against the idea, put forward by some proponents of creationism, that sensory organs are so intricate that they must have been designed by a higher being. Brazeau says: "It's a slap in the face to that kind of thinking."


Footnote 1: Brazeau M. D.& Ahlberg P. E. Nature, 439. 318 - 321 (2006).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; sweden
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-285 next last
To: Oztrich Boy

Wait a minute. That is a list of members of a governmental committee. I read that way too fast. Where is their expertise listed? I'm not seeing anything other than facts about the author.


161 posted on 01/18/2006 7:55:56 PM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
THIS JUST IN:
Washington, AP. Scientists at the National Institute of Evolutionary Physics reported today that their just completed $27 million study may have proved conclusively that the walls have ears!

162 posted on 01/18/2006 7:57:01 PM PST by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wfallen
I asked in a post: "And please give me the proof."

And I get "Science doesn't deal in proof."

But we're told "evolution is a fact, not a theory"

That's correct. Which part are you confused about? Hint: Facts are determined by means other than by "proof".

But of course science deals in proof. Its true that its proofs are never quite as good as mathematical proof.

Then they aren't proofs. Words mean things.

That's why its often found to be wrong.

Define "often". Provide your documentation.

These days its evolution that doesnt deal in proof.

Evolution deals in theories validated by the scientific method in multiple independently cross-confirming ways, as compared against vast mountains of real-world evidence and research findings. The fact of evolution is extremely firmly established.

Evolution looked good in the 1950's, after Miller-Urey, and during the era of "protoplasm" . The next 40 years werent so kind. We found that cells were just too complicated.

Yo, ignorant guy -- the formation of the first life form(s) has nothing to do with evolution. By definition, the origins of life were due to pre-evolutionary processes, since evolution requires inheritable replication in order to take place.

And evolutionary biology does not depend in the least on any discoveries about the origin of life. Even if God (or aliens) came down and plonked the first cells on Earth, evolutionary biology is just as valid as it is if the first cells arose by some natural process.

Then "Irreducible complexity" was described by Behe. That was the kiss of death.

Behe's a fool, his arguments about "irreducible complexity" are fatally flawed, and are based on an incorrect model of evolutionary processes. In short, he's wrong. Sorry about that.

Here are my own analyses of it:

The next idea you probably will not like, and that is irreducible complexity.

As an "idea" I like it just fine, and so do evolutionary scientists. The problem is that Behe (and the creationists who follow him) have created a "straw man" version of "IC" which is quite simply incorrect -- but appears to give the conclusion they want.

The original notion of "IC" goes back to Darwin himself. He wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
That's "Irreducible Complexity" in a nutshell. It's not as if Behe has pointed out anything that biologists (or Darwin) didn't already realize.

But let's examine Darwin's description of "IC" in a bit more detail (emphasis mine):

No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.

[Example snipped]

In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another, that I will give one more instance. [Long detail of example snipped] If all pedunculated cirripedes had become extinct, and they have already suffered far more extinction than have sessile cirripedes, who would ever have imagined that the branchiae in this latter family had originally existed as organs for preventing the ova from being washed out of the sack?

-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859

Darwin makes two critical points here:

1. A modern organ need not have evolved into its present form and function from a precursor which had always performed the same function. Evolution is quite capable of evolving a structure to perform one function, and then turning it to some other "purpose".

2. Organs/structures can reach their present form through a *loss* of function or parts, not just through *addition* of function or parts.

Despite the fact that these observations were laid out in 1859, Behe's version of "Irreducible Complexity" pretends they are not factors, and defines "IC" as something which could not have arisen through stepwise *ADDITIONS* (only) while performing the same function *THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE*.

It's hard to tell whether Behe does this through ignorance or willful dishonesty, but the fact remains that *his* definition and analysis of "IC" is too restrictive. He places too many "rules" on how he will "allow" evolution to reach his examples of "Behe-style IC" structures, while evolution itself *IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE RULES* when it operates. Thus Behe's conclusion that "Behe-style evolution" can not reach "Behe-style IC" hardly tells us anything about whether *real-world* evolution could or could not have produced them.

For specific examples, Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" flagellum is flawed because flagella are composed of components that bacteria use FOR OTHER PURPOSES and were evolved for those purposes then co-opted (1, 2), and Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).

Even Behe's trivial mousetrap example turns out to not actually be "IC".

The usual qualitative formulation is: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced...by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system, that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional..."

Note the key error: By saying that it "breaks" if any part is "missing" (i.e. taken away), it is only saying that evolution could not have reached that endpoint by successively only ADDING parts. True enough, but Behe misses the fact that you can also reach the same state by, say, adding 5 parts one at a time, and then taking away 2 which have become redundant. Let's say that part "A" does the job, but not well. But starting with just "A" serves the need. Then add "B", which improves the function of "A". Add "C" which helps A+B do their job, and so on until you have ABCDE, which does the job very well. Now, however, it may turn out that CDE alone does just fine (conceivably, even better than ABCDE does with A+B getting in the way of CDE's operation). So A and B fade away, leaving CDE. Note that CDE was built in "one change at a time" fashion, with each new change improving the operation. HOWEVER, by Behe's definition CDE is "Irreducibly Complex" and "could not have evolved (been built by single steps)" because removing C or D or E from CDE will "break" it. Note that Behe's conclusion is wrong. His logic is faulty.

The other error in Behe's definition lies in this part: "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system, that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional". The problem here is that it may be "nonfunctional" for its *current* function, but perfectly functional for some *other* function helpful for survival (and therefore selected by evolution). Behe implicitly claims that if it's not useful for its *current* function, it's useless for *any* function. The flaw in this should be obvious.

"Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."

True as far as it goes, but but this is hardly the same as Behe's sleight-of-hand in the first part of his statement, which relies on the false premise that a precursor to a structure is 100% useless for *any* purpose if *taking away* (but not adding) one part from the current purpose makes it unsuitable for the current purpose. Two gaping holes in that one...

Behe (an anathematized name)

For reasons I've outlined above.

talks of the bacterial flagellum, which contains an acid-powered rotary engine, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft. The machinery of this motor requires approximately fifty proteins.

Except that it doesn't. As many biochemists have pointed out, other organisms have function flagella (even *as* flagella) with fewer proteins (and/or different proteins). That flagellum isn't even "IC" by Behe's own definition since you *can* remove proteins and have it still work as a flagellum. [...]

For a far more realistic look at the evolutionary "invention" of the flagellum, see Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum , which I linked earlier in this post. From the abstract:

The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
And:

For an analysis of numerous errors and such in Dembski's Design arguments/examples, see Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch. It also contains material on the flagella issue you raise next.

As for Behe (the other author):

One small example is the flagella on a paramecium. They need four distinct proteins to work.

Actually they need a lot more than that. And as far as I know, Behe never used the cilia on paramecia as his example, he has primarily concentrated on bacterial flagella.

They cannot have evolved from a flagella that need three.

Contrary to creationist claims (or Behe's) that flagella are Irreducibly Complex and can not function at all if any part or protein is removed, in fact a) there are many, many varieties of flagella on various species of single-celled organisms, some with more or fewer parts/proteins than others. So it's clearly inaccurate to make a blanket claim that "flagella" in general contain no irreplacable parts. Even Behe admits that a working flagella can be reduced to a working cilia, which undercuts his entire "Irreducibly Complex" example/claim right off the bat.

For a semi-technical discussion of how flagella are *not* IC, because many of their parts can be eliminated without totally breaking their locomotive ability, see Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella

But even if one could identify, say, four specific proteins (or other components) which were critically necessary for the functioning of all flagellar structures (and good luck: there are three unrelated classes of organisms with flagella built on three independent methods: eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and eukaryote flagella -- see Faugy DM and Farrel K, (1999 Feb) A twisted tale: the origin and evolution of motility and chemotaxis in prokaryotes. Microbiology, 145, 279-280), Behe makes a fatal (and laughably elementary) error when he states that therefore they could not have arisen by evolution. Even first-year students of evolutionary biology know that quite often evolved structures are built from parts that WERE NOT ORIGINALLY EVOLVED FOR THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION, as Behe naively assumes (or tries to imply).

Okay, fine, so even if you can prove that a flagellum needs 4 certain proteins to function, and would not function AS A FLAGELLUM with only 3, that's absolutely no problem for evolutionary biology, since it may well have evolved from *something else* which used those 3 proteins to successfully function, and only became useful as a method of locomotion when evolution chanced upon the addition of the 4th protein. Biology is chock-full of systems cobbled together from combinations of other components, or made via one addition to an existing system which then fortuitously allows it to perform a new function.

And, lo and behold, it turns out that the "base and pivot" of the bacterial flagella, along with part of the "stalk", is virtually identical to the bacterial Type III Secretory Structure (TTSS). So despite Behe's claim that flagella must be IC because (he says) there's no use for half a flagella, in fact there is indeed such a use. And this utterly devastates Behe's argument, in several different ways. Explaining way in detail would take quite some time, but it turns out that someone has already written an excellent essay on that exact thing, which I strongly encourage you to read: The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" .

(Note: Several times that essay makes a reference to the "argument from ignorance", with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with it. I'd like to point out that contrary to the way it sounds, Miller is *not* accusing Behe et all of being ignorant. Instead, he's referring to this family of logical fallacies, also known as the "argument from incredulity".)

That is called irreducible complexity.

That's what Behe likes to call it, yes. But the flagella is provably *not* IC. Oops for Behe. Furthermore, while it's certainly easy to *call* something or another "Irreducibly Complex", proving that it actually *is* is another matter entirely.

As the "Flagellum Unspun" article above states:

According to Dembski, the detection of "design" requires that an object display complexity that could not be produced by what he calls "natural causes." In order to do that, one must first examine all of the possibilities by which an object, like the flagellum, might have been generated naturally. Dembski and Behe, of course, come to the conclusion that there are no such natural causes. But how did they determine that? What is the scientific method used to support such a conclusion? Could it be that their assertions of the lack of natural causes simply amount to an unsupported personal belief? Suppose that there are such causes, but they simply happened not to think of them? Dembski actually seems to realize that this is a serious problem. He writes: "Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses [which here, as noted above, means all relevant natural processes (hvt)]. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other, it would be mistaken" (Dembski 2002, 123 (note 80)).
For more bodyblows against the notion of Irreducible Complexity, see:

Bacterial Flagella and Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Irreducible Complexity

Review: Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"

The fatal flaws in Behe's argument were recognized as soon as his book was published, and countless reviewers pointed them out. And yet, creationists and IDers, who seem to rely mostly on the echo-chamber of their own clique and appear to seldom read much *actual* scientific sources, still seem blissfully unaware of the problems with Behe's thesis, and keep popping in on a regular basis to wave the book around and smugly yell something like, "See, evolution has already been disproven!"

What's funny is that by Behe's own argument, a stone arch is "irreducibly complex" because it could not have formed by nature *adding* sections of stone at a time (it would have fallen down unless the entire span was already in place -- and indeed will fall down if you take part of the span away):

Needless to say, what Behe's argument is missing in the case of the stone arch is that such arches form easily by natural means when successive layers of sedimentary rock added on top of each other, and *then* erosion carves a hole out from *under* the arch by *removing* material after the "bridge" of the arch itself *was already there*.

Similarly, Behe's arguments about why certain types of biological structures "could not" have evolved fall flat because he doesn't realize that evolution does not only craft features by *adding* components, it also does so by *lateral alteration*, and by *removing* components.

Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. It only "proves" that a *simplified* version of evolution (as envisioned by Behe) couldn't give rise to certain structures -- not that the *actual* processes of evolution could not.

And:

[Behe:] An example of an irreducibly complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum: a rotary propeller, powered by a flow of acid, that bacteria use to swim. The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works - a rotor, stator and motor. Furthermore, genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

Behe's either a liar or an idiot on this point. Far from being "irreducibly complex", many simpler versions of working flagella get along just fine, as do several subcomponents of the particular flagellum which Behe uses as his poster-child. And *both* points violate the requirements which Behe states are necessary conditions for a system to be "irredicubly complex". Oops!

See also:
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Beyond suboptimality: Why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design

ID's irreducible inconsistency revisited

Irreducible Contradiction

The Revenge of Calvin and Hobbes: Behe's Meaningless Complexity

If you find any flaws in my analysis, do feel free to let me know, but until then, Behe has been demolished.

But as history shows, theories never die, they just fade away. It took 75 years for "caloric" to fade away. Even Sadi Carnot believed in caloric 30 years after Count Rumford falsified it.

This is ridiculously irrelevant. Are you really trying to imply that because an idea held in the 1700's which was correct enough to match most of the actual laws of thermodynamics, until further research turned up its deficiencies, that this somehow means that nothing in science can be trusted, not even fields like evolutionary biology which have been validated and cross-validated by literally millions of validation tests and vast mountains of evidence?

Look, if blowing smoke in a transparent manner like this is the very best you can come up with to take a feeble swipe at biology, clearly you haven't even a shred of an actual case against evolution.

Do you realize how pathetic it is for you to whine, "but, but, an idea in the 1700's was found to be not entirely incorrect, so by gosh evolutionary biology might be all wrong too, we'd better not rely on it or any other field of science, ever, and I'm not being a Luddite if I choose to just totally ignore it and all of its evidence and research and believe whatever I want to!"

Come to think of it, though, you're hardly alone in making that pitifully desperate argument.

163 posted on 01/18/2006 7:58:57 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Did God tell you this or did you get it from the fossil record?
164 posted on 01/18/2006 8:02:52 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
You guys SURE SEEM SURE of yourself. Not.

You're obviously ignorant of the reason why science articles are written in such language, even when the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive.

Hint: It's so they won't make the same mistake as the anti-evolutionists on these threads.

165 posted on 01/18/2006 8:02:54 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Junior
And, unlike religionists, scientists never speak in absolutes because there is always the potential that tomorrow something could turn up that would obviate any given statement.

Oh? I've never heard a mathematician state that 2 plus 2 might equal 4. Or a chemist say that a water molecule MIGHT contain two parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen. But maybe they're not real scientists.

166 posted on 01/18/2006 8:03:51 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

" Yo, ignorant guy -- the formation of the first life form(s) has nothing to do with evolution."

He knows.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560688/posts?page=100#100


167 posted on 01/18/2006 8:04:12 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Speculation.

I think the authors even said so. In fact almost all scientific articles contain a Discussion Section in which the authors are asked to provide speculation. But the data (results) section contain the facts without speculation.

168 posted on 01/18/2006 8:06:12 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Did God tell you this or did you get it from the fossil record?

Actually both. Did God tell you something different?

169 posted on 01/18/2006 8:06:34 PM PST by phantomworker ("Don't accuse me of your imagination.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: wfallen
I asked in a post: "And please give me the proof."
And I get "Science doesn't deal in proof."
But we're told "evolution is a fact, not a theory"

You've got your wires crossed. Science collects and examines empirical evidence. A theory is the best logically deducted explanation of the evidence. It does not prove anything. Theories are revised and changed every day because of better logic, more evidence or the evidence is reexamined. Theories that cannot be disprove are usually the best explanation. If you doubt a theory furnish a better explanation of the empirical evidence.
170 posted on 01/18/2006 8:08:45 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
That's one quirk of the British system. Look in the House of Commons, and you find lawyers.
If you want doctors, biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, industrialists; you have to look in the House of Lords
171 posted on 01/18/2006 8:08:51 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Junior
[And, unlike religionists, scientists never speak in absolutes because there is always the potential that tomorrow something could turn up that would obviate any given statement. ]

Oh? I've never heard a mathematician state that 2 plus 2 might equal 4.

That's because math isn't science, son. See post #71 if you're still confused.

Or a chemist say that a water molecule MIGHT contain two parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen.

When discussing what a particular paradigm states, they'll flatly state what's in the theory, as in this example.

But ask a chemist if atoms have a real existence or are artifacts of the behavior of the quauntum probability wave interaction, and you'll hear him go back to qualified language.

But maybe they're not real scientists.

Maybe you don't have a real grasp of the issue.

172 posted on 01/18/2006 8:12:09 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: GadareneDemoniac

You mean they don't? No wonder I haven't been getting any.


173 posted on 01/18/2006 8:12:18 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sorry, if I seemed like a wiseass. Those kinds of numbers make my whole mind glaze over, not just my eyes, and I react by being, well, a wiseass.


174 posted on 01/18/2006 8:14:20 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
Most, if not all, of them have advanced degrees in science or engineering

You only get into the HoL if you have established emminence in some field - or if by inheritence, after you should already have established a career which was probably not geared to getting elected (such as lawyering)

Hence a wider range of expertise that in the House of Commons,

175 posted on 01/18/2006 8:14:52 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
My problem is the White Coat Sainthood and this hushed tone of awe in the Temple of Science. You wouldn't dream of granting it to a physician (as well you should not)--why a PhD evo-biologist or cosmologist or archeologist? They are the least accountable of scientists, because how can you hold whimsy and speculation to account?

Don't you be badmouthin' archaeologists, now. Least accountable? Pure BS! We work for a living!

176 posted on 01/18/2006 8:17:18 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Junior
That's because math isn't science, son. See post #71 if you're still confused.

Great argument. Google "mathematical science" and tell all those prestigious organizations that they're not using the term "science" correctly.

When discussing what a particular paradigm states, they'll flatly state what's in the theory, as in this example.

Sorry, Junior's argument was that scientists NEVER speak in absolutes. That's clearly an incorrect argument.

177 posted on 01/18/2006 8:20:43 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: wfallen
You obviously don't know what a theory is. Here are some definitions (from a google search):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 1/2/06]


But wait, there's more!


From an NSF abstract:

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.


178 posted on 01/18/2006 8:21:11 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Great argument. Google "mathematical science" and tell all those prestigious organizations that they're not using the term "science" correctly.

Results 1 - 10 of about 426,000 for "mathematical science" . (0.39 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 787,000 for "creation science" . (0.74 seconds)
The forces of darkness still lead.
179 posted on 01/18/2006 8:26:59 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
Sorry, if I seemed like a wiseass. Those kinds of numbers make my whole mind glaze over, not just my eyes, and I react by being, well, a wiseass.

OK, that I can relate to. Thanks for the clarification.

180 posted on 01/18/2006 8:29:34 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-285 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson