Posted on 05/27/2006 3:14:09 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
Now bear in mind, I am an engineer, not a research biologist. My orals were in a different field entirely.
I did work as a programmer for a research biologist. I used my skills at solving differential equations to model predator-prey equations.
As the number of rabbits increased, even the slowest wolf could catch prey. Then, as the number of wolves increased, they would begin to cut down the number of rabbits.
That different predation rate drives a different evolution rate.
Fine.
What has happened is between 16 and 40 species of crustacian has evolved in only 40 years. The creation by man of a new niche made an opportunity for creatures with genes that permit varying amounts of salinity. Before that niche, the environment was stable. After it was filled, the niche was filled, the species still evolve, but outliers are trimmed. With the niche newly created (by man) the evolution rate radically increases.
I wouldn't know this unless I worked at Pt. Mugu for a year. We are now restricted on what we could do in the Mugu lagoon, as each of these species are endangered, and protected. Nothing like them anywhere in the world.
Interesting experiment, no?
So, there you are. We make math models, and anticipate the performance of reality. Then we measure the reality, and find that it agrees with the math models.
When you have a math model that comports with reality, that kind of implies that the theory by which you make the math model has some degree of validity.
The fellow I worked with was able to get 300 years of Hudson Bay Company fur returns. That means that all the animals in several geographic areas were "sampled" and tracked. So were the trappers, which also provides a human species interaction. That gave him enough data to check his theory against a lot of facts.
Further, he wrote several papers about the interaction of measles germs with humans in Baltimore (a city with unusually good record keeping). Again, he showed how a simple differential equation model predicted accurately the cyclical nature of epidemics, as the disease evolved, and as humans evolved resistance.
Again, the concept is understood. How, though, do you know this?
Ever read "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman?"
http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=064&issue=03&page=0564
Above link is one of the important early papers. That describes interaction between bees, plants, and aphids. I didn't work on that paper, but my ex-wife did.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658(197403)55%3A2%3C291%3ASFOLHT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1#abstract
Another paper.
Anyways, yes, I have read that. Mr. Feynman was quite a bongo player. I was just down at Jet Propulsion Laboratory last Thursday. Small world.
Yes. Feynman related the story about a seminar where it was mathematically shown what the spin state of a particle was. Feynman believed the arguent it is good and convinced him the spin was one. But someone piped up and said, the spin's not one it's three -- they measured it.
Then we measure the reality, and find that it agrees with the math models.
That's right, as in the example above.
Another Cal Tech anecdote, a young underclassman at one of his first seminars hears his professor growl "where's the data".
You haven't been able to get to the substance other than the model or concept. Where's the data? You've got some nice anecdotes -- which science don't make.
The data? That is in the thousands of bees observed by the team.
It is the millions of Hudson's bay company fur returns, and their time sequence, for 300 years.
It is the tens of thousands of measles cases in Baltimore collected over 300 years.
Does that help?
Feynman also wrote in his "Six Easy Pieces" a description of several particles, and didn't have an over arching theory about how they were related.
"And such is the regretable, inadequate state of Physics today."
The quark theory came out a few years later, and provided insights not previously available. Data measured the energy level of the "top quark" that was the last. String theory was developed after that.
When you have a theory that doesnt match the measurements, you are still looking. When you have a theory that matches data, that is as good as a theory gets, until you find data that the theory doesn't explain. Then you look for a new theory.
You've forgotten the question. You've strayed. Go back to the original question I asked and talk about specific and direct data that allows us to know the original stateent is true.
How do you know it is not uniform?
I just did.
You want to know how we know. Metaphysics.
Before you examine the data, you decide on a degree of confidence that will convince you.
You collect your data, or plot data that was independently collected. You write an equation based on a theory. You draw a line through the data based on that equation. It matches. The conclusion: the theory that draws the line explains the data.
You check that level of agreement using statistics. It matches to that level of confidence.
You write a paper. You present it. You get questions from your peers. You answer them, or you identify where additional work is needed, either to the theory, or to the data.
Tall, it looks like your mind is made up. Evidence would be of no use.
Good night.
ps. My library consists of literally tens of thousands of volumes, covering a very wide range of subjects. And I have been into virtually all of them.
All fine, all generally anecdotal. Where there may be some mathematical modelling concerning populations, it does not address the specific question of how you know evolution is not a uniform process? So far all you've answered is why one might think it is not uniform.
If you can't answer simple direct questions you ought not get all huffy, coyoteman. Science isn't telling stories. My mind is made up about that, yes.
The reason why it is not uniform is because the conditions change.
Uniform response of an organism to uniform conditions would give a uniform rate of change. Even if there is a uniform response by the organism or population to its environment, nonuniform conditions would give a non-uniform rate of change.
Hope this helps. Do you have calculus behind you? It would help if you did. You don't need to really grasp fluxions and such, but I would explain it differently if you didn't.
I am asking where is the data?
You are the guy saying the spin is 1. I am the guy saying where is the data, how did you measure it?
You havn't shown how anything was measured to show evolution is not uniform. You keep saying why you think it is not uniform and how it makes sense that it should not be uniform.
That is not the same as showing it is not uniform. This is a serious distinction.
The two camps often overlap, and there are supporters of each who are quite fair-minded and reasonable as well as some others are considerably less so. I also agree that Christian Fundamentalists deserve credit for being open about their fundamentalism, and I would give that same respect to a Daniel Dennett, who is equally open about his. Those who would dispute that there are fundamentalists in science as well as religion should take note of Dennett's words about himself and his close friend and associate, Richard Dawkins:
And I also thought, on rereading the book, that the late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist.
And Dawkins insists, and I agree wholeheartedly, that there aren't any good compromise positions. Many have tried to find a compromise position, which salvages something of the traditional right-side-up view, where meaning and purpose rain down from on high. It cannot be done. And the recognition that it cannot be done is I would say, the mark of sane Darwinian fundamentalism.
Well sometimes assumptions are wrong.
No, atheism *is* a religion. If you don't believe me go talk to one. They're as zealous as any other religious type.
The opposite of a Christian/Jew/Muslim is a Satanist, not an atheist.
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.