Evolution: Is it Real? Answers from Biologists

[aychamo]

Occam's razor says otherwise.

Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."

 

[aychamo]

I think iansmith (who is the god of my religion, btw) just decimaed kirckmcloren :)

 

[Nereid]

I think your position is evolution made everything from the 1st spark of life. I say you have no proof. In fact the mother ship is a less fantastic theory.

I'm not aware that I said anything of the sort ... perhaps you could point a statement of mine that is consistent with your thought?

So the bacteria never possessed a recessive trait that the antibiotic bred for? You would rather believe a more fantastic solution? Occam's razor says otherwise.

I see that iansmith has addressed this.

You? Charitable? You are indulging in obfuscation and diversion. Course when you have no argument then sophistry is the only way left. You will not possesses truth until you desire it above all else. The mind works that way.

To claim evolution has been proven via the scientific method -- shame sir, shame. You have proven nothing.

As for me I would prefer, like most people, that the unknowable be known. But wanting something doesn't make it so. And intellectual integrity demands you stick with the facts -- even when they are troubling. To have blind faith in evolution when it is logically unknown is a testament to your religion. You have faith do you not? Smells like religion. Sounds like religion. Maybe ;)

Au contraire, my post goes right to the heart of the matter.

It would seem that loseyourname is right, you are ignorant, not deeply cynical, so let's take this step by step.

Science is all about the application of the scientific method. In a few words, observations and experiments produce data. Through an iterative process, theories are developed which 'explain' the data. What does 'explain' mean? First ... contrary to what you have said twice now ... it does NOT mean 'prove'; no scientific theory can ever be proven - not quantum mechanics, not General Relativity, nothing. Second, 'explain' means something like this: 'there are no observations or experimental results which are inconsistent with the theory, within its domain of applicabilty'. It will come as no surprise to you that there's considerably more to science than just my few sentences (e.g. the role of models, the treatment of 'error' (a term which differs considerably from its everyday meaning), quantitative vs qualitative, 'falsifiability'), but this is sufficient for me to show you why a rejection of modern, successful theories of evolution is tantamount to denying that your PC works.

So, 'evolution'. As used by those who study it, it's a shorthand for the millions of observations; or, in iansmith's words "evolution is the change of genotype over time". This is quite incontrovertable, just as 'gravity' is.

Then there are 'theories of evolution', which seek to explain the observed facts. Darwin's was the first, but it's long since been shown to be inadequate - several other mechanisms are required to explain the observations, beyond the 'natural selection' of Darwin's theory.

So, how do we measure the success of a theory? One very powerful way is to list observations and experimental results which are inconsistent with it within its domain of applicability. So, for example, General Relativity is hugely successful - it is consistent with *all* observations and experimental results. Further, the consistency has been tested quantitatively, in some cases to 1 part in 100,000.

Using this yardstick to measure the success of theories of evolution, how do they stack up? Answer: there are no observations or experimental results which are inconsistent with the theories.

Finally to clarify the abiogenesis and evolution confusion: no theory of evolution can 'explain' the origin of life on Earth. Is that a fatal blow to those theories? No. Why not? Because the origin of life on Earth is not within the stated domain of applicability of those theories. So, to claim (as you do) that theories of evolution fail because they cannot explain the origin of life is a bit like saying that theories of economics fail because they cannot explain how the Sun generates heat and light.

What's all this have to do with PCs, the internet, the car you may drive, etc? Simple; a claim that theories of evolution are failures - without evidence to substantiate those claims within the framework of science - is equivalent to a denial of science. Yet your very use of a PC and the internet is a powerful demonstration that science 'works'; there is no difference between the success of science in producing solid-state electronics (for your PC) and the success of theories of evolution.

Finally, that 'Sir' bit; Nereid. Or, if you prefer, http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

 

[kirkmcloren]

Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

 

[aychamo]

I know it's outside the realm of evolution, but for however life actually started on earth, any theory I read, to me, is infinitely more plausible than the idea of a god creating it.

 

[kirkmcloren]

Finally, that 'Sir' bit; Nereid. Or, if you prefer, http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

My apologies milady.

 

[kirkmcloren]

I know it's outside the realm of evolution, but for however life actually started on earth, any theory I read, to me, is infinitely more plausible than the idea of a god creating it.

All the stories, GOD or godless are fantastic.
But then, life is fantastic, isn't it?

 

[aychamo]

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

Why don't you address the problems in your argument that iansmith decimated instead of constantly inappropriately referring to science and evolution as a religion and church.

I don't dare chime in with scientific input when we have the knowledge of some of the others on the board. I just took a microbiology class last semester and several times I was confused in what we were learning and I posted threads here and had many people here instruct me on what was and wasn't correct. With their help I acheived greater understanding in micro than anyone else who took it that semester (I know because I got the highest grade in all the classes on each exam and the final.)

 

[loseyourname]

So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.

That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.

 

[kirkmcloren]

That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.

You believe even though it is not proveable. That's religion -- and like most true believers you lack perspective. Self doubt is alien to you. Too bad.

 

[loseyourname]

So are you going to continue your "political sophistry" or are you going to answer any of the evidence and/or arguments presented here and elsewhere?

 

[kirkmcloren]

It is pointless to attempt a discussion with you. I answered the "contact" (1)and you responded (2) totally ignoring the troll comment in 1. You don't debate to resolve the truth, you instead argue to dominate an argument. You are inappropriately aggressive. Too bad. But like all true believers you have an emotional investment in your religion and you cannot conduct yourself otherwise. That's the bottom line. So troll away. Have the last word. I'm sure you always do.
==========================
1
Quote:
Originally Posted by aychamo
Oh god.. Another person who got their science education from the movie "Contact."


So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot
==========================
2
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkmcloren
So typical of you effete snobs. Anyone who isn't a member of your church is to be denigrated.

Argumentation and debate used to be based on logic not political sophistry. Your choice of technique tells a lot.


That's funny coming from a guy who has ignored every bit of evidence and explanation given in this thread and countless other threads like it on these boards and instead argues by calling evolution a "church" and making jokes about the platypus.
=========================================

 

[aychamo]

Guys, this guy is obviously just trolling. He has already demonstrated that he has no knowledge of basically anything related to biology or evolution.

It's pointless to argue with him, he hasn't presented a single argument in his past dozen posts.

 

[Monique]

Keep the discussion to the topic please.

People who don't believe in evolution: do you believe in micro-evolution? Surely there is a lot of evidence in our genome that this is taking place. There are many duplicated genes that mutate and gain new characteristics. There are whole families of genes that look very much alike but do slightly different things.

There are virusses that are able to insert novel pieces of DNA, there are transposons that hop through the genome taking pieces of DNA and inserting them into genes.

This would all facilitate micro-evolution.

 

[russ_watters]

kirkmcloren, did you read Nereid's post from yesterday? Would you like to address it?

 

[Thallium]

Strange how some get so *****y...

 

[Phobos]

I say you have no proof.

What do you make of the changes in the fossil record through time?

How about the genetic markers that corroborate the geographic and temporal evolutionary history displayed by the fossil record?

How about the directly observed instances of speciation?

How about the observed instances of genetic mutatations that resulted in non-detrimental effects?

 

[Phobos]

You have never seen a transitional specie

We have many fossil examples of transitional forms.

and natural selection involves reduction of diversity from the parent--not evolution.

That too is PART of evolution. Some mechanisms increase diversity (e.g., recombination, mutation, gene flow) whereas other mechanisms decrease diversity.

Can you prove life on Earth wasn't put here by the mother ship?

You ask to "prove the negative". Regardless, we can prove that life has the capacity to change and we can provide evidence that it has changed in the past. On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that life was placed here by an alien spaceship.

 

[Janitor]

I heard part of Alistair Begg's message on the 'Truth for Life' program on Christian radio this morning. His theme was that male and female roles have gotten all mixed up in the last 150 years. He blames the teaching of evolution, which to him is a pack of lies. His one-sentence summary of evolution was [and I am quoting him exactly]: "DNA met DNA in a pile of sludge."

CAN SOMEBODY--I SAY--CAN SOMEBODY SHOUT OUT "STRAW MAN ARGUMENT" FOR ME?

 

[aychamo]

You think that's bad? A pentecostal told me that evolution says "two rocks collided, amoebas came out and that's where humans came from"

 

[Adam]

I invented evolution!

 

[Phobos]

"DNA met DNA in a pile of sludge."
"two rocks collided, amoebas came out and that's where humans came from"

Excellent examples why a strong science program is important for public schools.

 

[aychamo]

Excellent examples why a strong science program is important for public schools.

Agreed. It kills me when uneducated yokels spout off at how scientists are always wrong, lie, etc. Meanwhile, they can't explain a single phenomenom except by crediting their appropriate paranormal entity.