(06-14-2009 12:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2009 11:46 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:41 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Nope, and neither does any "Scientist" that's why it's called a theory.

Gravity is also just a "theory".

You should stop embarassing yourself.
http://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.porta...%20gravity

Dr Torch, you are misinformed on the subject. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. The word "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). Instead, it is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review". This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. The Origin of Species was published in 1859 and has been subjected to over 150 years of peer review by scientists the world over. The general conclusion by the International scientific community is that the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation for how life evolves on Earth.

Science is just a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it nice and exciting and why the peer review process is essential. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statements (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). Unfortunately, creationists and Intelligent design proponents refuse to subject their "theories" to the scientific peer review process. The reason they prefer to shortcut one of the most essential stages of the scientific process is because 1) explanations are not scientific but are instead pseudo-scientific religious doctrine, and 2) their observations cannot adequately explain many of the observations made in the natural world (ubiquity of nucleic acids, the fossil record, etc) and would be rejected.

I should also point out that you fail to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law.

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).


THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.

Newton's Universal law of gravitation described the gravitational attraction between bodies with mass under Earth-like conditions. For example, it is a Newtonian law of graviation that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground. However, it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs. The attraction of bodies with mass is a scientific law, but we understand and explain it through a theory (Theory of gravity, Theory of general relativity, etc).

(06-20-2009 06:25 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-12-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I believe in evolution and this could be explained as being a needed component, mutated from a different one, that allowed birds to fly longer. I would also ask (I didn't read the article entirely) if non-flying birds or birds that do not make legnthy flights possess this trait. If they do, then why since they don't fly?

I am a professional biologist (focus on urban ecology) and I do not "believe" in evolution. The word "believe" describes a the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true in the absence of evidence. For example, consider the statement "I believe there are aliens". This statement implies that I accept the fact that aliens do indeed exist without requiring the element of proof. This is the common element in many religious practice and is the basis for the concept of faith.

As I explained above, science requires the presentation of repeatable and falsifiable evidence in order for hypotheses to be accepted as valid (not false). This concept of requiring "proof" is at the very core of the philosophy of science. This is why as a scientist I say that I do not believe in evolution - such a statement would go against the principle of science itself. Rather, I say that based on the evidence presented in the fossil record, genetic analysis, etc, I accept the theory of evolution as valid.

We've had these discussions on the philosophy of science many times and very recently. So I will withhold on that discussion.

My point is simply this, I don't think there is evidence to suppurt the theory of evolution, and I think that anyone who does say this hasn't looked at the primary evidence thoroughly, or isn't being honest.

The fossil record is notorious for its dearth of evidence, that's why it's easy to find a dozen quotes by Gould that says this very thing. It's also why Gould came up w/ Punctuated Equilirium. In addition, there are many who say that the full fossil record, discovered to date, runs contrary to the evolutionary theories.

Genetic analysis, depending on whether you're talking about molecular clocks or evolutionary trees, either starts w/ the assumption that evolution has occurred, or it presents a circular reasoned argument. Or sometimes both.

etc. All too commonly used in these discussions. Not really much evidence to support evolution when you get down to it. Rather it's used to intimidate people from peering behind the curtain.

(06-21-2009 08:37 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-14-2009 12:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2009 11:46 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:41 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Nope, and neither does any "Scientist" that's why it's called a theory.

Gravity is also just a "theory".

You should stop embarassing yourself.
http://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.porta...%20gravity

Dr Torch, you are misinformed on the subject. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation,

Blah blah blah.

First I am not misinformed. I am well aware of the pedantic definitions you are imposing.

Secondly, I simply pointed out that gravity includes empirical observations to support it. It is not limited to conjecture as is evolutionary theory, or string theory if the former is a sensitive subjet for you.

Quote: The general conclusion by the International scientific community is that the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation for how life evolves on Earth.

And I suggest that you take some time to learn history before you start lecturing me. As a start, you can explore what the International scientific community initially thought in regards to, the heliocentric universe, phlogiston, and the germ theory of disease.

(06-21-2009 08:00 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I just think spending time on evolution and big bang theories is somewhat of a waste of time.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973)

Here's a short list of the value of studying evolution:

Conservation

Evolutionary biology is important in conservation because conservation is a particular example of the general problem evolutionary biologists are interested in—dealing with how species expand or contract the environment they occupy. Some species are very successful and they occupy lots of different environments. They spread very rapidly. Some species, on the other hand, are dwindling down to extinction. These two processes are essentially evolutionary processes.

There are changes in populations, demographics, and genetics over time, and so evolutionary biologists spend a lot of time studying what is called biogeography, that is, the study of the distribution of living organisms and what mechanisms determine the biogeography of species. These mechanisms are the same mechanisms that evolutionary biologists have been interested in ever since Darwin. These include

* natural selection
* migration patterns of different species
* the origin of new mutations
* perhaps the change in the DNA that allows certain species to be more successful in a new environment

So evolutionary biology is relevant to conservation biology because conservation biology essentially represents the same sort of basic questions and problems that evolutionary biologists are dealing with.


Agriculture

Agriculture is an interesting problem because it represents essentially applied evolution in the sense of human beings using evolutionary processes to improve their crops or their animals. This was noted by Darwin since the 19th century. The main analogy, the reason why we call natural selection natural selection, is because Darwin made the analogy of artificial selection done by plant and animal breeders.

Now in the case of other cultures where the interest in evolutionary biology is not just in the fact that humans are mimicking a natural process, which is in itself very interesting, but also that humans are changing the environment by doing agriculture and by changing the environment, they are posing new challenges to the evolution of species that surround them. When we plant a particular crop in a particular area, for example, all of a sudden that environment has changed, from an ecological perspective, and all the animals and plants that live in that area are now faced with a new environment. A new environment poses an evolutionary challenge. There will be natural selection on insects, for instance, feeding on the new plants to adapt to the new environment. So in some sense agriculture is both an example of how human beings can use evolutionary processes to their advantage but also, in so doing, how people change their environment and cause new natural evolution as a response to the changes.


Medicine

There is an entire field that has been developed over the last 20 years called evolutionary medicine. The idea of evolutionary medicine is that human beings are animals like any other species. We are not outside of nature. As such we are subject to the same sort of natural phenomena, including natural selection and other types of evolutionary mechanisms. So evolutionary medicine tries to understand the origin of disease, why we have certain kinds of disease, and how we can fight them using evolutionary principles. Here are two examples:


* One of the typical examples is the idea that is essentially evolutionary when we use antibiotics for our ailments. We should use antibiotics in an intelligent way. For example, we should be using multiple antibiotics in a careful regimen. If we use single antibiotics and we don’t use them carefully enough, what we do is cause natural selection in the pathogen to select for resistance. The origin of resistance in antibiotics is an imminently evolutionary mechanism, and if we understand how evolution works, then we can avoid it or at least we can slow it down. In the case of Tuberculosis, the misuse of antibiotics may lead to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant TB bacterium. When patients misuse antibiotics (for example, not completing the treatment for the time prescribed by a doctor), not all of the bacteria is killed. Those which survive the first few doses of anibiotics are the ones which are successful in reproducing. As a result, more bacteria resistant to the antibiotic are formed. As a result, the patient does not recover from the disease, and the symptoms which had seemingly gone will return. When this occurs, it becomes difficult to treat the patient because it is no longer known which antibiotic will work.

* The same situation goes for the most successful approaches to complex diseases such as HIV/AIDS. One of the best approaches to fight that kind of battle is, in fact, to bombard the population of viruses with a variety of responses, not just with one. For the same reason as multiple antibiotics. The virus evolves very rapidly to respond with resistance to individual medical solutions or medications. When we use multiple ones, what we are doing is using the basic principle of evolution—living organisms simply cannot evolve resistance to complex environments because they cannot count on multiple divisions happening at the same time. That is an important principle that comes out of evolution.


Non-biological fields

The best example at this point, I guess, would be software engineering. Because of the computer revolution we are now using software that is increasingly sophisticated. The most interesting software that we use is the result, essentially, of the evolution of computer programs that are made to compete against each other. In other words, to make them do whatever human beings want to make them do. A lot are very complex pieces of software. For example, the kind of software that runs the larger operations in airports is just too complicated for a human mind to write. Software engineers use what they refer to as genetic algorithms. It is the idea of writing simpler pieces that engineers then put into competitions against each other. They then evolve by mutating themselves, that is, by essentially inserting random changes into the code and then going through a second round of selection. And this works very nicely! Software engineers have borrowed this process from evolutionary biologists.

Forensics is another example. The ways you interpret and analyze DNA evidence in forensic cases depends on principles of evolution. To be able to say that a DNA match for a suspect is significant to a case, you have to know something about the distribution of that particular kind of DNA in a human population and the frequencies of DNA involved in that population. So you have to know something about how human populations themselves evolve in order to make a more meaningful comparison between the simple suspect data you are analyzing. Forensics would be another example of evolutionary medicine, about how biotechnological and medical research are now able to use exquisite evolutionary principles.
Evolutionary biologists can work in industry as well as academia.

I don't think most informed Creationists Don't dispute Micro-evolution, the process by which a species adapts to its environment. I know scientists have studied ferrell dogs and determined they have evolved to fit their environment with standard characteristics, color, Brown or Black which allows them to blend with their environment, weight about 40 pounds, just large enough to defend against natural enemies but not too large so that weight is difficult to maintain. Evolution at work, but in the end it's still a dog.

(06-21-2009 08:00 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-13-2009 07:46 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I just think spending time on evolution and big bang theories is somewhat of a waste of time.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973)

I don't know who Dobzhansky is, but I will point out that this is utter crap.

First, it's simply an opinion. It is a meaningless addition to the discussion. It's as though I were teaching guitar and insisted that the Who was the greates rock band b/c of Pete Townshend, and nothing else in the genre meant anything w/o watching Townshend perform.

Second, not only is it an opinion, he offers no supporting evidence.

Howver, in response to this

Quote:Here's a short list of the value of studying evolution:

Conservation

Agriculture

Medicine

None of those fields require evolution to be understood (which was the point based on Dobzhansky's quote.) In fact all you do is simply point out ways evolution has encroached on those fields, in an effort to find some usefulness. Those fields had millennia of study and understanding prior to evolution. Ergo, Dobzhansky's statement still lacks any support.

In addition I would point out that all evolutionary theory requires genetics in its discussion. Genetics is the basis for evolution. Moreover, genetics doesn't need evolution, so evolution isn't the basis for any science. Rather it's a model, a framework, a hermeneutic to assist in organizing these fields. Unfortunately, it's not a very good model and worse, it's become so unweildy that it's a distraction from studying biology. It's a parasite to doing good science.

Quote:Non-biological fields

The best example at this point, I guess, would be software engineering.

Once again, here is someone who is so gung-ho on evolution, he doesn't even pay attention to what he's writing.

Software devlopment isn't evolution by natural selection, nor are there any genetic components. Once again, this bespeaks a complete lack of rigor in defining evolution, and demanding empirical support.

So while you post diatribes on how science is done, you overlook the basic principles of logic. That includes defining your terms prior to any sorts of proof. Not coincidentally, lots of evolutionary biologists do this. I think it's b/c they weren't taught very well in HS.

Ironically enough, your example does refer to intelligent design.

Quote:Forensics is another example. The ways you interpret and analyze DNA evidence in forensic cases depends on principles of evolution.

Which is to say, you've provided an example of circular reasoning.

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

The evidence also shows that there are gaps in the fossil record due to incomplete data collection and the difficult in creating fossilized specimens. Not every species that has ever existed on Earth will be fossilized as the process is a chance event (organisms have to be at the right place at the right time and even then, conditions must remain favorable through time to preserve the fossil).

Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements.

All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells. All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things - be they fungi, plants, animals, etc. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.

Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates, which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.

Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors.

People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits. Your own dog (or cat if you are a cat person) is a product of the same evolutionary mechanisms that occur in the wild.

Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.

If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

Given the abundant evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution, it is highly probable that evolution has occurred and is still occurring today. However, there remains speculation in regards to the specific evolutionary path of some species lines and the relative importance of the different natural processes responsible for their evolution.

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  First I am not misinformed. I am well aware of the pedantic definitions you are imposing.

First off, you are misinformed. I provide those definitions to you because they are the same definitions that any scientist with a Ph.D. or advanced scientist degree would give you. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you take it up with the International scientific community.

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Secondly, I simply pointed out that gravity includes empirical observations to support it. It is not limited to conjecture as is evolutionary theory, or string theory if the former is a sensitive subjet for you.

As does evolution. The development of ntibiotic resistance is one such example. A second example was described by Cristina Sandoval in the May 23, 2002 issue of Nature. A species of insect called the "walking stick" (Timena cristinae) found in the Santa Ynez Mountains of California now exists in two distinct varieties or forms that are in the process of evolving into two separate species by adapting to different environments. The insect forms differ in terms of genetically determined color patterns--one is striped and the other is not. The striped ones hide from predators on the striped chamise plant, while the unstriped ones hide on the unstriped blue lilac plant. Those that have inherited the appropriate camouflaging color pattern for their chosen environment survive the onslaught of lizards and birds. In this case, the natural predators, rather than humans, are the driving forces of natural selection. Mating experiments show that each variety of "walking stick" prefers to mate only with others having the same color pattern. This breeding isolation is leading to the evolution of two distinct species (process known as speciation).

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  As a start, you can explore what the International scientific community initially thought in regards to, the heliocentric universe, phlogiston, and the germ theory of disease.

Other than proving that science evolves as new scientific evidence is supplied, I'm not exactly sure what your point is? What evidence is there that supports an alternative scientific theory to evolution?

(06-21-2009 01:57 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

You can save your freshman biology "proof" to support evolution. It takes up a lot of space, and what you wrote demonstrates what a hand-waving argument it really is. Lots of correlation passed off as causation, a lack of a clear definition of evolution, avoidance of the actual mechanisms at work (isn't this what gets Dawkins so upset?).

What's worse, is there is no discussion of alternate theories that still fit w/in these observables.

Since you like quotes, keep this one in mind,

"...there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in 'cargo cult science'... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them." R. Feynman

At any rate, they have books dealing w/ this subject. Doesn't take too much rigor to get past these evidences, and demand that this 19th C fairy tale be dismissed.

(06-21-2009 02:08 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  First I am not misinformed. I am well aware of the pedantic definitions you are imposing.

First off, you are misinformed. I provide those definitions to you because they are the same definitions that any scientist with a Ph.D. or advanced scientist degree would give you. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you take it up with the International scientific community.

I only have a problem w/ your unnecessary interjection of them in this discussion. You've spent an awful lot of space trying to demonstrate that gravity describes an empirically observed phenomenon, while I did it by using a single link.

You also assert that I'm not using these terms correctly, which in fact, I am. So if you insist on being in violent agreement, that's your choice. But stop wasting my time.

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Secondly, I simply pointed out that gravity includes empirical observations to support it. It is not limited to conjecture as is evolutionary theory, or string theory if the former is a sensitive subjet for you.

As does evolution. The development of ntibiotic resistance is one such example. A second example was described by Cristina Sandoval in the May 23, 2002 issue of Nature. A species of insect called the "walking stick" (Timena cristinae) found in the Santa Ynez Mountains of California now exists in two distinct varieties or forms that are in the process of evolving into two separate species

So an insect "evolved" into an inset. Is that all you mean by evolution?

Because I'm pretty sure we already mentioned that too.

And we haven't even arrived at the point where we discuss your arbitrary definition of "species".

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  As a start, you can explore what the International scientific community initially thought in regards to, the heliocentric universe, phlogiston, and the germ theory of disease.

Other than proving that science evolves as new scientific evidence is supplied, I'm not exactly sure what your point is? What evidence is there that supports an alternative scientific theory to evolution?

Hmm, you suddenly don't know what my point is. Better to spout off than actually take the time to understand, is that it? You wrote that the International scientific community accepts evolution. I am pointing out why I am not impressed. To be brief, that fallacious appeal to authority isn't proof for evolution.

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I don't know who Dobzhansky is, but I will point out that this is utter crap.

So you don't accept evolution because you claim their isn't enough evidence (I assume that means you have actually read some of the scientific literature on the topic) yet you don't know one of the most famous evolutionary scientists of the modern decade?

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Second, not only is it an opinion, he offers no supporting evidence.

The quote was taken from an essay first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pages 125-129. The evidence is supplied in the article if you care to read it. I've posted another interesting quote by Dobzhansky below:

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

– Theodosius Dobzhansky,

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  None of those fields require evolution to be understood. In fact you simply point out ways evolution has encroached on those fields, and tried to find some usefulness. Those fields had millennia of study and understanding prior to evolution. Ergo, that statement is proved false.

You are correct on a basic level. Understanding the evolution of modern crops such as corn is not required in order for farmers to take a seed, plant it in the ground, water it, and allow it to grow into an adult corn plant. However, what evolution allows us to do is understand things like insecticide/pesticide/fungicide resistance, the evolution of crop pathogens, etc. Just because evolution did not create the field itself does not mean that evolutionary theory has no value within the given field.

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  In addition I would point out that all evolutionary theory requires genetics in its discussion. Genetics is the basis for evolution. Moreover, genetics doesn't need evolution

Genetics may be the basis for evolution in the sense that it provides an explanation for how inheritance is pasted from generation to generation; however, that fails to ignore the fact that evolution has had a tremendous impact on the field of genetics as well. Population genetics research studies the distributions of these genetic differences within populations and how the distributions change over time. The concept of genetic drift was inspired by evolutionary biology. Even the theory of natural selection - the basic process the underlies evolution - has been used to explain the presence of genetic diseases within population.

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Software devlopment isn't evolution by natural selection, nor are there any genetic components. Once again, this bespeaks a complete lack of rigor in defining evolution, and demanding empirical support.

The point was not to say that software engineering is evolution, merely that concepts from evolutionary theory have been applied to fields outside of biology.

(06-21-2009 01:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  So while you post diatribes on how science is done, you overlook the basic principles of logic. That includes defining your terms prior to any sorts of proof. Not coincidentally, lots of evolutionary biologists do this. I think it's b/c they weren't taught very well in HS.

And I say that intelligent design proponents inability to understand that I.D. is not science in any sense of the word speaks volumes about their science education.

(06-21-2009 02:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You can save your freshman biology "proof" to support evolution. It takes up a lot of space, and what you wrote demonstrates what a hand-waving argument it really is. Lots of correlation passed off as causation, a lack of a clear definition of evolution, avoidance of the actual mechanisms at work (isn't this what gets Dawkins so upset?).

So your counterargument is simple dismissal without providing a well structured counterargument? You have yet to explain how I.D. fits any definition of science or what evidence there exists to support. Rather than dismissing my evidence off hand, why do you not provide proof of your own?

[quote='DrTorch' pid='4435947' dateline='1245612004']
I only have a problem w/ your unnecessary interjection of them in this discussion. You've spent an awful lot of space trying to demonstrate that gravity describes an empirically observed phenomenon, while I did it by using a single link.

You also assert that I'm not using these terms correctly, which in fact, I am. So if you insist on being in violent agreement, that's your choice. But stop wasting my time.[/quote]

I only disagree with you because your link underscores your inability to differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Here is a link to a scientific article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa...ntent;col1

"For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights. During the Apollo 8 mission, astronaut Bill Anders responded to the question of who was flying the spacecraft by saying, "I think that Issac Newton is doing most of the driving right now." (Chaikin, 1994, p. 127). His response was understood by all to mean that the capsule was simply following the basic laws of physics described by Isaac Newton years centuries earlier.

The more thorny, and many would say more interesting, issue with respect to gravity is the explanation for why the law operates as it does. At this point, there is no well-accepted theory of gravity."


[quote][quote='DrTorch' pid='4435900' dateline='1245609627']
So an insect "evolved" into an inset. Is that all you mean by evolution?[/quote]

No, they are undergoing the process of speciation - the evolutionary process by which new species arise. They have not evolved yet but one can consider them to be on a trajectory towards evolution. In order for speciation to be complete, an reproductive isolation mutation or mechanism must occur that allows for independent mating (since we are speaking about animals, Mayr's definition of species is acceptable). An no, that is not all I mean by evolution, it is simply an example of it.


[quote][quote='DrTorch' pid='4435900' dateline='1245609627']
Hmm, you suddenly don't know what my point is. Better to spout off than actually take the time to understand, is that it? You wrote that the International scientific community accepts evolution. I am pointing out why I am not impressed. To be brief, that fallacious appeal to authority isn't proof for evolution.
[/quote]

And your proof for intelligent design is a group of theologians, many of whom have no scientific background? Also, if we are going to examine historical scientific topics such as the heliocentric/geocentric universe concept, then it is also important to also bring up the influence of dominant religious powers and what those did to those who opposed them. Galileo, for example, was imprisoned in his on home for the remainder of his life for supporting a heliocentric view of the universe.

(06-21-2009 02:39 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 02:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You can save your freshman biology "proof" to support evolution. It takes up a lot of space, and what you wrote demonstrates what a hand-waving argument it really is. Lots of correlation passed off as causation, a lack of a clear definition of evolution, avoidance of the actual mechanisms at work (isn't this what gets Dawkins so upset?).

So your counterargument is simple dismissal without providing a well structured counterargument?

Just like Wildebeest. You haven't offered any argument to begin with. Yet I'm supposed to give you a "counterargument."

This is exactly what I'm saying. You've given no evidence and then demand a response. You simply throw out "Fossil record, anatomical similarities, etc" and act like you've proven something. You've done nothing except cite a few terms. You've offered no specifics to any of them, so what exactly am I to rebut? It's not hard to find a page full of Gould quotes stating that the fossil record does NOT provide the evidence you say it does. Since Gould is on your side, I figure you ought to pay attention to that sometime.

Furthermore, even if you provide something factual (Piltdown man anyone?) you've not considered any other models that fit the data you provide.

This is exactly the cargo cult science that Feynman mentions. Too many biologists behave this way. Might be worth asking why.

Quote:You have yet to explain how I.D. fits any definition of science or what evidence there exists to support. Rather than dismissing my evidence off hand, why do you not provide proof of your own?

Because I never argued for ID. I realize it's human nature to try to find fault w/ someone else when they've pointed to your mistakes. But that's not science.

I don't need to offer you any other model when critiquing evolution. Just like I don't need to know the exact geology of the moon to tell someone it's not made of green cheese. (It isn't you know. That's just more 19th C fiction).

[quote='UofL07' pid='4435989' dateline='1245614148']
[quote='DrTorch' pid='4435947' dateline='1245612004']
I only have a problem w/ your unnecessary interjection of them in this discussion. You've spent an awful lot of space trying to demonstrate that gravity describes an empirically observed phenomenon, while I did it by using a single link.

You also assert that I'm not using these terms correctly, which in fact, I am. So if you insist on being in violent agreement, that's your choice. But stop wasting my time.[/quote]

I only disagree with you because your link underscores your inability to differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Here is a link to a scientific article:
[/quote]

Yes, thank you for your links. But did you actually read the thread. It was stated (by someone else) that "gravity is just a theory." Even your own references demonstrate that not to be true.

You seem awfully quick to jump in and explain how I'm wrong, ought to be sure that you know what you're talking about next time.


[quote][quote='DrTorch' pid='4435900' dateline='1245609627']
So an insect "evolved" into an inset. Is that all you mean by evolution?[/quote]

No, they are undergoing the process of speciation - the evolutionary process by which new species arise. They have not evolved yet but one can consider them to be on a trajectory towards evolution.[/quote]

You can consider all you like. You can consider, infer, hope, pray, whatever. It is still nothing at all like evidence or proof of the theory. It is the mildest of support in that it doesn't contradict the theory, but that's a pretty far cry from good support. And moreover, that's the best you've got.

In order for speciation to be complete, an reproductive isolation

[quote] An no, that is not all I mean by evolution, it is simply an example of it.[/quote]

Wait, you just said it wasn't an example, rather it was headed "towards evolution." See what I mean. Even the ardent supporters get caught in their own words when they're being honest. I suspect you fool yourself with the word games needed to support evolution.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." R. Feynman

[quote][quote='DrTorch' pid='4435900' dateline='1245609627']
Hmm, you suddenly don't know what my point is. Better to spout off than actually take the time to understand, is that it? You wrote that the International scientific community accepts evolution. I am pointing out why I am not impressed. To be brief, that fallacious appeal to authority isn't proof for evolution.
[/quote]

And your proof for intelligent design is a group of theologians, many of whom have no scientific background? [quote]

Quick w/ the straw man argument too I see. You should be embarassed. I never made any full case for ID, nonetheless, the supporters of ID go well beyond theologians, and include many scientists. Your straw man and ad homenim attacks are predictable, but rather sad.

[quote] Also, if we are going to examine historical scientific topics such as the heliocentric/geocentric universe concept, then it is also important to also bring up the influence of dominant religious powers and what those did to those who opposed them. Galileo, for example, was imprisoned in his on home for the remainder of his life for supporting a heliocentric view of the universe.
[/quote]

Yes he was, but it wasn't really on religious grounds. Once again, you ought to do some research on the subject, not just accept the urban legends that your teachers threw around.

(06-21-2009 06:51 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 02:55 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  [quote='DrTorch' pid='4435947' dateline='1245612004']
I only have a problem w/ your unnecessary interjection of them in this discussion. You've spent an awful lot of space trying to demonstrate that gravity describes an empirically observed phenomenon, while I did it by using a single link.

You also assert that I'm not using these terms correctly, which in fact, I am. So if you insist on being in violent agreement, that's your choice. But stop wasting my time.

I only disagree with you because your link underscores your inability to differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Here is a link to a scientific article:

Yes, thank you for your links. But did you actually read the thread. It was stated (by someone else) that "gravity is just a theory." Even your own references demonstrate that not to be true.

You seem awfully quick to jump in and explain how I'm wrong, ought to be sure that you know what you're talking about next time.

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  So an insect "evolved" into an inset. Is that all you mean by evolution?

No, they are undergoing the process of speciation - the evolutionary process by which new species arise. They have not evolved yet but one can consider them to be on a trajectory towards evolution.

You can consider all you like. You can consider, infer, hope, pray, whatever. It is still nothing at all like evidence or proof of the theory. It is the mildest of support in that it doesn't contradict the theory, but that's a pretty far cry from good support. And moreover, that's the best you've got.

In order for speciation to be complete, an reproductive isolation

Quote: An no, that is not all I mean by evolution, it is simply an example of it.

Wait, you just said it wasn't an example, rather it was headed "towards evolution." See what I mean. Even the ardent supporters get caught in their own words when they're being honest. I suspect you fool yourself with the word games needed to support evolution.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." R. Feynman

Quote:

(06-21-2009 01:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Hmm, you suddenly don't know what my point is. Better to spout off than actually take the time to understand, is that it? You wrote that the International scientific community accepts evolution. I am pointing out why I am not impressed. To be brief, that fallacious appeal to authority isn't proof for evolution.

And your proof for intelligent design is a group of theologians, many of whom have no scientific background?

Quote:Quick w/ the straw man argument too I see. You should be embarassed. I never made any full case for ID, nonetheless, the supporters of ID go well beyond theologians, and include many scientists. Your straw man and ad homenim attacks are predictable, but rather sad.

[quote] Also, if we are going to examine historical scientific topics such as the heliocentric/geocentric universe concept, then it is also important to also bring up the influence of dominant religious powers and what those did to those who opposed them. Galileo, for example, was imprisoned in his on home for the remainder of his life for supporting a heliocentric view of the universe.

Yes he was, but it wasn't really on religious grounds. Once again, you ought to do some research on the subject, not just accept the urban legends that your teachers threw around.

You are losing this battle horribly. I think you should just say God created everything, it says so in the Bible. That should shut them all up.

Robert, their discussion is over "my pay grade" as Obama famously said. In other words, you should stay far,far away.

(06-21-2009 07:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Robert, their discussion is over "my pay grade" as Obama famously said. In other words, you should stay far,far away.

Their discussion MAY be over "my pay grade" but I am not an idiot and can actually follow the conversation so my reply stands. Unless he just wants to give it up now because he is losing BADLY.

Sorry Rob but your replys are little more than dog poo.

(06-21-2009 08:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sorry Rob but your replys are little more than dog poo.

THis coming from you and a group of republicans who don't understand the difference between weather and climate, lacks understanding of global warming and how it relates to global climate change, have no clue as to what science is and believe the Bible is the only science you need to know.

(06-21-2009 08:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-21-2009 08:05 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sorry Rob but your replys are little more than dog poo.

THis coming from you and a group of republicans who don't understand the difference between weather and climate, lacks understanding of global warming and how it relates to global climate change, have no clue as to what science is and believe the Bible is the only science you need to know.

http://www.libertypundit.com/2009/01/18/...on-anyone/

I am so amazed we all survived the Ted Danson predictions!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!