Posted on 08/19/2010 1:19:28 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
Documentary educational television would have us believe that the single greatest scientific achievement of the past millennium was Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many religious fundamentalists have serious issues with this assertion. Many legitimate scientists with both secular and religious perspectives do as well. Darwin himself recognized serious shortcomings with evolution. A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene. These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
On the other side we have unscientific religious fundamentalists. These folks are willing to describe their search for proof of their scriptures as basic science. They study scripture and seek evidence to support what it says.
Both sides’ methods are troublingly reminiscent of case law: by carefully selecting your precedents or evidence one can prove anything. Mathematicians and philosophers long ago concluded that “proving” a general hypotheses about the real world is a logical impossibility. That is, no one can find every possible exception to any assertion about the real world.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionclub.org ...
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.
A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene.
Although the article tries to represent an unbiased tone, putting "scientist" in quotes shows the bias.
These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
These folks didn't show up until well afer the theory became commonly accepted, had proven unassailable. It happens in all theories. We have lots of scientists working within the current models of quantum theory, general relativity, and a whole host of other theories, in addition to those scientists who work within the current model of natural selection.
The auhor forgets that natural selection is 150 years old, and that Darwin based his work on others who far preceded his own. The inspiration I find most interesting is that natural selection is basically the 18th Century work of Adam Smith applied to animal populations.
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable
In two different ways. In science NO THEORY is provable. A scientific theory is only model that attempts to explain the phenomena we see. A successful theory that has beaten out the others means it is the one model that SO FAR best explains the phenomena. Examples of that are the atomic theory (yes, atoms are "just a theory"), the germ theory of disease (yes, germs are "just a theory" and initial postulates of the theory were indeed wrong), and natural selection. Meanwhile, creationism claims absolute truth and cannot be disproven within its model.
Those three scientific theories were initially controversial as they stepped on some religious toes. For some strange reason, creationists only still have a problem with natural selection these days. I guess they look just way too dumb saying germs don't cause disease.
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable. Neither side can frame a hypothesis that is specific or predictive. Instead, they answer things after a new piece of evidence is discovered. Science should proceed from general principles to specific, testable predictions.
Actually, I use the basic tenets of evolutionary theory all the time when I am thinking about my experiments. As far as the types of results I should be looking for, and how I should interpret what I see, the theory is highly predictive.
I don’t worry myself a great deal with this debate. To me, in my blissful ignorance, the basis of Darwin’s theory is survival of the fittest, not the origin of life. If I am correct in that, then man is at the top of the totem pole. His brain and use of tools, which he has greatly expanded, gives him dominance over all others with the possible exception of germs and bacteria. Even in that he is still far ahead of the game.
All this other environmental crap, like endangered species, is counter to Darwin’s theory on which they pretend to rely. In addition, that is what the Bible says, that man has dominance over the others. So, Darwin compliments the Bible rather than opposing it.
As far as God is concerned, proving God scientifically or philosophically is a fool’s errand. To prove God is to destroy God, by definition. A proof makes God finite and He is infinite. Case closed.
This is interesting. Can you provide me an example?
I'll try.
Right now, I am interested in finding a virus. The virus is present in many reptiles and mammals, and around a hundred variants of the virus exist in humans. Evolutionary theory tells me that parts of the virus change more than other parts, according to their function within the virus. If the part has a structural function, then it changes a lot (because quite a bit of amino acid variation can occur without drastically changing the structure). But, if the part has a mechanistic function--like an enzyme--then it is resistant to change (because a single amino acid change in the active site can disrupt or even abolish the function of an enzyme). So, since I want to find variants of the virus, some of which may not yet have been found--I am designing an assay to detect the active portions of the virus enzymes, not the structural areas.
Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?
However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.
I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?
Science does not and has NEVER worked like that. First...observations of facts that are not explained by current scientific knowledge. Second....formulation of a hypothesis that explains both the old and new facts. Third....verification that further discovered facts do or do not support the hypothesis. If yes.....hypothesis is "promoted" to theory. If no....formulate new hypothesis.
Science ALWAYS works from the very specific to the general and NEVER the reverse, although it continues to be tested by explanation of further new observed facts. And there are other ways to "test" theories outside of lab experiments.
Nobody has any problem with the theory of plate tectonics, but no laboratory experiment has ever been done (or can be done) to prove or disprove it. But it has survived the tests of explaining newly discovered geologic facts quite nicely.
Actually, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a huge step in general principles, and was confirmed by many different specific, testable predictions, such as the bending of light due to gravity, to the slowing of the decay particles as they accelerate to the speed of light, and to the slowing of clock due to the gravity of the earth.
Thank you for the example. But I am curious: why would evolutionary theory predict that parts with a structural function would change more rapidly than those with a mechanistic function? Wouldn't random mutation be uniformly distributed within the virus?
However, I would surmise that if a random mutation affected a mechanistic function, then the virus would die or fail to reproduce, whereas a mutation to a structural function would still allow a virus to live and reproduce. So, then in living viruses, the mutations would primarily show up in the structural functions.
I see this is an example of random mutation (micro-evolution), but not a validation of macro-evolution. The virus, while mutating, still remains a virus. I have yet to find a solid experiment validating macro-evolution. Do you know of any?
Yes, your surmise is correct: mutations do happen at a fairly constant rate randomly throughout the virus genome, but survival of mutated viruses is not at all random. In a nutshell, that is a very simple illustration of the principle of evolutionary theory (i.e. "the fit survive").
In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring. The more time that passes, the more random mutations there are, so that after the passage of many generations, the "modern" species is quantifiably different than the "original" species. We will never see an example of, for instance, an animal with arms giving birth to an animal with wings, but we can find fossil evidence of animals whose arms became more and more wing-like over the course of thousands of years.
Garbage. Evolution has been wildly successful at predicting, in precisely the same way that plate tectonics has. More so, in actual fact, as there HAVE been laboratory experiments done to prove evolution. The author is an idiot who has let his religion overwhelm his science.
Evolution is how the world works. God set it up that way. The only people that have significant problems with that are the "biblical literalists" of Christianity.
Random mutation, or micro-evolution, has been shown in the lab, but as far as I know, no lab experiment has shown macro-evolution. Also, the existence of micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. What laboratory experiment has proven macro-evolution? Can you cite one?
Thanks,
K51
I've always thought that was funny. We're animals. We compete just like the rest. If we make a species go extinct then that is just nature at work, Darwin's theory writ large.
There was a testable prediction that a precursor to a tetra-pod would be found at a particular location in a strata of shoreline of a particular age, and they found them.
I predict that if I expose a bacterial culture to heat stress, the bacterial mutation rate will increase, increasing variation, and those variations that are more resistant to heat stress will increase within the population.
Scientists use the theory of evolution because it explains and predicts. They do not use the dogma of creationism because creationism has never produced anything of any real world value as far as use and application.
There is also a large contingent of Muslim creationists.
Science suffers in their culture due to it.
Absolutely agree b/c you can never re-produce thousands let alone millions and billions of years in a lab.
You claim:
“In the scientific world, we do not distinguish between “macro” and “micro” evolution. The process of evolution is the process of accumulation of random mutations over time. Some mutations are not survivable, so do not persist, but other mutations remain and are passed down to the offspring.”
However, any scientist true to his data will assert that there is a big difference between micro and macro.
Furthermore, the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, can accumulate and will eventually lead to the extinction of a species. Far more species are extinct than those that remain pointing to devolution.
The main reason science suffers is when it makes claims as fact that are not substantiated by the data (i.e. Global Warming). Science will only be science when it strives for complete openess and honesty - it must ‘evolve’ away from gov/political funding to regain it’s reputation.
For all those skeptics and creationists out there please take a look at this site below authored by a former believer in evolutionary dogma. Yes micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact but a resounding NO to most all the other fanciful evolutionary claims.
From my links page:
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Also I have another link regarding the alleged scientific ages for the Earth and Universe. A good scientific theory does not ignore/disgard any/all non-supporting data.
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.