A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[donh]

Thereafter, the major transitional sequences are incomplete. Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged. Where there should be evolution, there is stasis instead.

The evidence for evolution does not depend on finding a continuous stream of related intact fossils, any more than the evidence for the Hartzsprung-Russell diagram of star lifetime behaviors rests on observing every kind of star's every transitional phase.

The evidence lies in overall consistencies in morphology of related bones in related geological columns, and a host of other independent verifications--of chief note lately, the consonance of the mutational distance calculations with the ordering of the tree of life by the bone guys. What you are objecting to, is a primary principal of scientific reasoning called induction. If astronomy and nuclear physics can reliably believe things because of induction, rather than eyes-on experience, so can paleological zoology.

[Sabertooth]

that is where I'd bet our available scientific resources, if it was up to me. As you might infer from my opinion of how much the radiation clock stinks. However, I'd bet my money on as yet unappreciated RNA forces before I'd bet it on little green men from Alpha Centuri. Since some evidence (immune response) trumps no evidence.

Rest assured, in this context I have no interest in UFOs.

Check out a conversation between myself at #185, and Rudder at #189.

Ironically, this led indirectly to your post at #243, where you also mentioned the immune system model.

That's where I'm going with my skepticism of the false primacy of random causes as an explanation for evolutionary speciation.

One side note on green men:

Back in 1976, in a CA public high school, my biology teacher started off the unit on evolution by reading out loud from Genesis 1, and then a one paragraph short story on alien Johnny Appleseeds who came to Earth several billion years ago.

Then he looked at the class and said: "both of these stories are possible, but I don't have any scientific evidence for them. Since this is a science class, it's my job to give you the best scientific explanation we have so far."

I've got my daughter in a Catholic High School, and and when she takes biology, I wouldn't have a problem with her teacher taking the same approach.

Dunno if the public school kids would be so lucky anymore.

[donh]

Also...the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. *hmmmmmmmmmmm* And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years.

Yes, it has survived millions of years in an ecological nitch that has been far less perturbed by cataclysmic and climactic changes than most of the fauna in the historical record are subject to. So it is no surprise that it has remained largely unchanged. Microscopic deep sea molluscks are even less subject to the vagaries of the surface than sharks, and have an even less perturbed history.

[donh]

That's where I'm going with my skepticism of the false primacy of random causes as an explanation for evolutionary speciation.

I'll assume random means "not having a cause outside the behavior of biological or environmental entities we know about already"--and hope to avoid getting drawn into the debate over what "random" means.

...

Well, "false primacy", hmm?...I don't know that its got any kind of primacy. It's just looks to most biological scientists like the most reasonable bet to make with our terribly finite suppply of research chips.

[garbanzo]

The first isn't overly restrictive, it's the normal means by which we confirm scientific theories.

No it isn't. Many sciences rely on indirect evidence. Our visual system is fairly restrictive in terms of what it can resolve so we quite often rely on indirect evidence for things that are too small, too large, or take too much time to witness in a lab. Many other things we simulate and look for good evidence that our simulations actually reflect reality.

[Rudder]

Last night I said: "The laws of Thermodynamics are violated by life forms, a manifestation which virtually defines life--and, by another name: Negative Entropy."

And you went ballistic.

I said I'd be back--try reading this:

The word, "entropy," is functional in three realms, according to most sources. And they are: 1. Thermodynamics, 2. Statistics and 3. "Laws of the Universe"

In my posts I am not appealing to understanding regarding thermodynamics, but rather the application regarding statistics in closed systems and, in particular, closed systems which renew themselves.

A living organism is a relatively closed, or isolated, ongoing chemical prosess. Being closed, it would achieve inertness when the fuel ran out---entropy.

My contention is that the closed chemically-reactive systems, aka: life forms, forestall entropy ( e.g., inertness) by ingestiing more energy than they expend.

[Rudder]

To the point:

You don't need the concept of randomness.

Please allow me to suggest the following:

Translate "spontaneous" and "random" by elaborating on each word's meaing in your context.

[JMJ333]

That's funny...the paleantology community disagrees with you. However, if you want to continue to believe evidence is there when it isn't, I won't stop you.

[donh]

That's funny...the paleantology community disagrees with you.

About the propriety of employing induction in science? I rather doubt it.

[very_right_in_kc]

Where has a single scientist ever observed "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

And just as easily asked, Where has a Creationist ever observed the act of Creation?

"Not only is the universe more strange than we imagine, it is more strange than we can imagine." - Albert Einstein (I think...)

[gore3000]

"I do not, nor do any mainstream scientists I have ever had contact with. I claim it is a theory. "

Seems to me that a theory which has had some 150 years to find supporting proof and has been unable to do so is just plain bunk.

[gore3000]

"uh huh. Could you point me to the proof of the theory of gravity?

You can't do it, "

Of course I can, and if you were a more well rounded person, would know it yourself. The proof is the American Flag of the Moon. All the calculations of the many flights there and back were made using the theory of gravity. There is your proof.

You and your evolutionist friends are as usual trying to confuse things. There are many kinds of proofs, not just mathematical proofs. Since evolution is clearly not a theory of logic, it cannot and I am not asking for it to provide logical proofs. If it is any kind of science, as it claims to be, it would a natural science. If it were a natural science, it should be able to provide proofs like the other natural sciences do. It cannot, so it is not science, it is charlatanism, it is bunk.

[KeepUSfree]

The first problem is to define "species". As an entomologist, we have LONG discussions over the concept of "What is a species?". In the past, species differentiation was accomplished by studying the physical and behavioral traits of an organism and and classifying them based upon those traits. Species get "raised" (to a species level) and "lowered" (lumped into a same species) all of the time. With new DNA testing and verification, this may change in the future. Now, "observing" this specieation is as likely as "watching fossils form". It takes too long and our short little lives and tiny brains can't concieve the length of time involved. However, if one looks to the NE of the USA, there is an entire group of butterflies that are extremely similar - but are considered separate species. Each is totally geographically isolated by high mountains - which they cannot fly over. So, yes, if you want to be honest with yourself, take a look at the genus Oensis which are found in Vermont, NH. You will see similar - but different species that formed as the glaciers receded and the butterflies settled into thier respective mountain valleys. Each valley has a slightly different ecosystem. And, each butterfly has evolved sympatrically within that system.

As for "life is always found where there was life before". I have no problem with the possibility that a "seed" of life came here on a meterite. Or, even that another species visited and either purposefully, or accidentally left "life" behind.

But, evolution exists. Look at the people around you. Look at photographs from the 1800's. We've changed - so has the world around us.

[gore3000]

"If you cannot define it, you cannot prove it and in your own words, you cannot define speciation. -me-

Do not confuse the fact that something is more complicated than you had imagined, sufficiently so as to require some statistical math, with its non-existence." -donh-

Eating back your own words, eh?

In post 307 you said:
"no one knows what the precise moment of speciation is" My statement therefore stands in spite of your attempt at confusing the issue.

[gore3000]

"Evolution is not about species anyways. It is about new added characteristics to a species's genome. -me-

... which result in another species. -Quila-

Yes, you may have another species of worm, moth, or whatever, but you do not have anything with more developed capabilities. As I have explained more than once here, There is a very big jump between an amoeba and a man, lots of new organs, systems, capabilities. For such "evolution" to have occurred mere speciation of the same kind is totally insufficient as proof.

[gore3000]

"Scientists in the Emirates said Tuesday that it took two years to perfect the artificial insemination technique necessary to breed Rama's llama mom, a petite 165 pounds, with his overwhelming dad, who weighs in at 990 pounds."

Okay, so it was not easy, but it was done. You could not breed a hypo and an elephant together no matter what you did. They are still the same species and have much in common - even after 30-40 million years of having had no contact with each other.

In fact, the long time that it has taken such a small change to occur, the long time that has passed since these two animals have been separated and yet remain the same species, shows quite well that the species is immutable as creationists claim. In the 100+ million years that mammals have been around, there clearly has not been enough time for evolution to have been the cause of the vast variety of species it claims to have produced.

[gore3000]

"1) You're using 'proof' in a nonstandard way; the atom bomb is not a proof of nuclear physics in the same sense that Pythagoras proved his theorem.

No, I am not. You are selectively restricting the meaning of proof to fit your purposes. You can prove that a person is guilty of murder without producing a Pythagorean theorem of what happened. See also my post to Donh in 392.

As to your statement about "identical point mutations", it is false. One of the problems they had when doing the genome project for humans was that the genome of each human being (let alone of different species) is different. Accordingly, they had to take samples from quite a few individuals and compare them, in order to "map" it. Even then, they missed many genes, and the results of the two different companies doing them were not in accord with each other.

If that were not enough, the genes for the same capabilities in different species are different. For that reason for example, the blood of different species, even though it performs the same function in all of them, cannot be used for other species. This shows that all these genes are indeed different and claims that there are "identical" point mutations are totally false.

[ag2000jon]

bump

[Sabertooth]

The first problem is to define "species". As an entomologist, we have LONG discussions over the concept of "What is a species?". In the past, species differentiation was accomplished by studying the physical and behavioral traits of an organism and and classifying them based upon those traits. Species get "raised" (to a species level) and "lowered" (lumped into a same species) all of the time. With new DNA testing and verification, this may change in the future.

As an aquarist, I know whereof you speak. Do you know what a pain you guys are to me? I cringe every time the notebook of some Victorian wanderer gets discovered. And you guys are forever reorganizing families and tossing and reviving old genera. All very useful and necessary, I know, but sometimes it feels like you're all running a book-selling scam.

Now, "observing" this specieation is as likely as "watching fossils form". It takes too long and our short little lives and tiny brains can't concieve the length of time involved. However, if one looks to the NE of the USA, there is an entire group of butterflies that are extremely similar - but are considered separate species. Each is totally geographically isolated by high mountains - which they cannot fly over. So, yes, if you want to be honest with yourself, take a look at the genus Oensis which are found in Vermont, NH. You will see similar - but different species that formed as the glaciers receded and the butterflies settled into thier respective mountain valleys. Each valley has a slightly different ecosystem. And, each butterfly has evolved sympatrically within that system.

I've stipulated the difficulties of direct observation of evolutionary speciation several times on this thread. But the difficulties don't really matter, my point is that we don't know exactly how species evolve. I'm persuaded that the fossil record indicates that evolution has occured, but I don't see where it informs us as to the "How?" of it all.

As for "life is always found where there was life before". I have no problem with the possibility that a "seed" of life came here on a meterite. Or, even that another species visited and either purposefully, or accidentally left "life" behind.

Yeah, I like a good Zontar Appleseed story too, but they really beg the question... Life started somewhere. How?

But, evolution exists. Look at the people around you. Look at photographs from the 1800's. We've changed - so has the world around us.

I'm no evolution denier, but I'm a stickler for precise language and thinking. My beef is with the presumption that random causes are the neutral ground. This is not an appeal for supernatural explanations at every turn (though I believe in God), it just seems to me that biology is still at a Newtonian state, and that there are principles of evolution that are as elusive and unseen to us now as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were to Physicists only100 years ago.

[donh]

Seems to me that a theory which has had some 150 years to find supporting proof and has been unable to do so is just plain bunk.

A proof has identifiable parts: a formal field of discourse, a set of formal assumptions called axioms, in modern parlance, related to that discourse, an hypothesis to be demonstrated, and a tabulate of intermediate demonstrations called lemmas, chaining from the axioms to the hypothesis, to demonstrate it's truth within the field of discourse. Kindly identify for me the parts of the proof you have offered me so that I can verify them--the very reason we have proofs in the first place--so everybody plays with all their cards on the table.

What a deductive proof shows is that you understand the relevant inner workings of a thing. What an inductive so-called "proof" such as you are offering demonstrates is that things that happened yesterday and today will still happen the next day. This works really well--until the day it doesn't, at which point you realize that inductive proofs only prove that you're ignorant of what is going on, but in a very orderly way.