Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:12pm PT
|
Evolution is established science. Those claiming otherwise have a lot in common with radical Islamic fundamentalists and clerics. Many of the comments here share the same arguments and tactics used in many Islamic nations in the attempt to keep their cultures static and their populations uneducated. Always a shame to see. And folks wonder why the U.S.'s ranking in the world is slipping when we foster ignorance over education under the guise of religion...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:12pm PT
|
"Blight and others are right to question. Openness to scrutiny and questioning is a big part of how science should work. We should strive to respond by answering the questions rather then with personal attacks."
You are right to question, but there is a constructive way of questioning and a destructive way of questioning.
Science works on openness, criticism, scrutiny and questioning. There are stupid questions that are asked based on misunderstanding, I've asked lots of those myself in a long career as a scientist. If my colleagues would politely humor me, listen respectfully to my arguements and felt they had to be nice and find some ground for consensus I would be shocked and hurt. I depend on them to tell me when I'm wrong, and their desire to be "pleasant" would ultimately waste my time, which would disturb me if I thought they didn't feel my time was worth it.
Criticism can appear to be a personal attack. Grow up, you want to learn something, you say something stupid, you can't expect someone to be nice to you if you insist you are correct when you are not.
The scientific method is relatively explicit about how to handle tests of hypothesis (which derive from theory). To continue to insist on a demonstration that your theory is "correct" falls under the catagory of prediction. Aside from organizing everything we know about biology, the theory of evolution forwarded by Darwin made a number predictions. They were found to be consistent with observation.
The theory of evolution is consitent with the physical world.
That is what a theory needs to be in order to be deemed correct. If you want to question that you are having a discussion about the scientific method, not about evolution.
If Blight would show where the theory of evolution was inconsistent with the physical world, then we could have a scientific discussion. He, and others like him, would say that I am being a dogmatic scientist. The dogma is not the theory of evolution, but the scientific method.
We can question the scientific method, that would be an interesting discussion. It's success is quite broad and probably the thing that is taken to be validating as there may be no "absolute" proof that it should be true. Perhaps it is about belief even.
So if you can invalidate the scientific method, perhaps you can invalidate all of science, and evolution along with it. That is the agenda.
Science has come under attack from all quarters, religious fundamentalists to neo-modernists to deconstructionists. I believe that it has survived the philosophical assaults largely because it does actually produce new, albeit provisional, knowledge about the physical world. It is objective, not subjective. It has a mechanism which is universal, you can do it as well as I. It limits its domain to the physically measurable. It requires rigorous logic to relate the quantitative discussions.
I am offended that someone like Blight, who is unidentified, would question what I know about science. You can all look me up on the web, you can read my papers, you can decide for yourself or you can ask someone you know about my bonifides. But that is all irrelevant. If you understand how to do science, then you can have an intelligent discussion regarding the theory of evolution.
What Blight offers is just some very poorly thought through challenges that creationists have come up with to confuse the public. My strong words are putoffish to our polite, democratic society, but science is not democratic,it is not built on consensus,its authority is nature. I have no problem stating that the theory of evolution is fact, it has not been proven to be otherwise. When it is, I will adopt the new theory.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
Mr. Hartouni
I do not know you but I surely wish I did. I very much appreciate the quality of your posts, your clarity and veracity.
Please keep the good words comming. Particularly in light of the apparent under-current of dark ages thinking.
Peace. phil broscovak
P.S. I bet you would be fascinating in disscussion.
|
|
Zander
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
Hi all,
In case you're wondering... I'm with Ed on this one.
Book Report
I read Voyage of the Beagle about a year ago. It's a very good read. It moves along at a good clip and Darwin is thinking out loud quite a bit. You need to read between the lines to realize what an outdoorsman he was.
Then, I took another run at The Origin of Species, which had thrown me for a loss before. This book is a more difficult read. Not because it’s not interesting but because he spends a lot of time defending and building a foundation for things we now take for granted. These have been mentioned and quoted up thread. More of a good read for those of us armchair scholars of evolution.
Recently, I picked up a biography at Moe’s, the local used bookstore, of Darwin by Cyril Aydon, a good and easy read.
If you are just starting out on this subject, start with the Beagle, then Aydon and then alternate Dawkins and Gould for a few books. This should get you kickstarted.
See ya,
Zander
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:34pm PT
|
I've been out climbing and I don't think I can read tihs whole thread. I will say, however, that 1. I am a she (someone called me a he) and 2. if and when Blight posts how he understands evolution to work, I'd be more than happy to fill in any gaps in the understanding and try to explain it.
And I didn't click the links under the muskipper, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what was the picture supposed to show?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:26am PT
|
Oh. I think the mudskipper was supposed to be an example of something without limbs evolving them or something?
Unfortunately it's not really a good example. Mudskippers are actinopterygians, or ray finned fished. They don't have quite the bone structure to be adapted for use as a limb the way the lobe finned fish (sarcopterygians) do (someone posted a picture of the homologies between fish and tetrapod limbs up there I think) - like coelocanths or whatever. They come from a different lineage, and only superficially look like an good example. There are also other issues, like the fact that as teleosts, they do not have lungs as other, more "primitive" fish (such as the sarcopterygian, the lungfish) do, so they can't co-opt those to allow them to travel further out of the water.
I like this guy.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 04:31am PT
|
Well, well.
Aren't you all angry and upset? Demanding to know who I am, what I believe and whether I'm a scientist instead of just answering the criticisms of the theories you hold so dear.
Who I am is not relevant because we're not talking about me.
What I do for a living is not relevant because we're not talking about my job.
Whether I believe in creationism is not relevant because we're not discussing creationism.
How amusing and ironic though that in answer to criticisms of your objectivity you refuse to take the points presented on their own merits, looking instead to attack me personally!
Still, to those who have remained civil, I'd like to present 3 key criticisms of science's current view of evolution:
1. Nobody has ever observed evolution by process of mutation and natural selction in action.
2. Nobody has ever replicated it in the lab.
3. No direct evidence whatsoever exists to support the idea that new, sustainable genetic material can spontaneously emerge in an existing species.
If you would like to answer these points, please be clear: I'm not looking for vague, reductionist nonsense about individual genes or morphology, weak excuses about timescales or snapshots of experiments which resulted in sterility or reversion. As an additional note, I think we can all agree that anyone descending to personal abuse or querying irrelevant personal details can be generally agreed to be tacitly admitting defeat.
To sum this up succinctly: the theory of evolution states that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses.
Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species.
If the theory is correct, there should be ample evidence to support it. If not, then how could it be held to be correct?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:39am PT
|
Blight,
"As an additional note, I think we can all agree that anyone descending to personal abuse or querying irrelevant personal details can be generally agreed to be tacitly admitting defeat.
It really is funny to hear you lecturing on civility. Keep reading.
"Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species."
This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion forum. You want evidence? There are loads of places you can get it - if you're actually looking, which you're not, or you would've found plenty already.
I'm not looking for evidence, you are. So go find it if you really want it.
[I am calling you an idiot]- the guy who says he's looking for evidence but hasn't even bothered to go to a library or a bookshop, or even just to google for it.
Google it you thick f*#k.
Sound familiar, Blight? No, I'm not responding to your post, that's just a cut and paste of your own words (posted as "Blight"), with the exception of some paraphrasing in brackets, at http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=260413&msg=261437#msg261437
So there you are. You answered your own question. Google it. You'll see that all three of your points are incorrect, as has been explained to you multiple times previously.
For those of you asking about Blight, he has made his position clear: "That God clearly doesn't fall within the narrow set of cirumstances that the arbitrary set of rules we made up and called "logic" can explain is certainly inconvenient. But to argue that he doesn't or can't exist because we don't understand and can't explain him is patently absurd and childish." http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=73603&msg=73897#msg73897
It could be argued that this statement is itself "absurd and childish," but then we'd be "descending to the level of personal abuse" which would evidently place right about on us on Blight's level.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:48am PT
|
I've spent the last 10 years looking for evidence. I have consulted scientists, researchers, professors, journals and papers by the thousand. I have found none.
Some people here say that this evidence exists. I say, produce it then.
If you don't want to help out, fine, I won't ask you to. Quit posting. I'm not going to use your refusal to help as evidence that I'm right.
If you do want to post again, please stay on topic instead of quoting irrelevant posts from unconnected threads. As I said, if you're not able to address the actual question asked, then just don't, I won't hold it against you.
By the way, that makes you 0 for 1 on answering the questions.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:01am PT
|
Perhaps this would all make more sense if one could succinctly write down exactly what the theory is that is being discussed. Darwin did not talk about genetics in the book mentioned. That knowledge came later.
So what is the theory, precisely, that we are debating? Are we only discussion Darwin, who gave no mechanism for special variation, but rather described only what could happen if it occured?
Are we debating whether the mechanisms that cause the genetic variations are well understood and complete enough to explain the observations?
There does seem to be agreement that genetic lines can be followed (post hoc), but is there truly agreement about what events and mechanisms caused simultaneous and genetically compatible variation? Were the variations caused by cosmic alterations of genetic material? Were they caused by infiltration of viruses, that were well matched to naturally occurring random deviations of genetic material and well understood tRNA mechanisms? Have changes been caused by infections passed in utero?
To say that a species with a competitive advantage to reproduce survives and one lacking sufficient advantages becomes extinct is a fairly tautological argument. It is of course completely true, therefore. But, of course, tautologies are not theories, but simply logically true statements devoid of any predictive power.
Perhaps, ala Euclid, or Occam, we could distill all of this down to its simplest statement. State the theory, in as simple a form as possible, but no simpler.
It should only take another 137 posts or so to agree on the statement of the theory before resuming a rational discussion of its merits. :-)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:43am PT
|
Aya. This is your field of expertise. I was wondering what you, and perhaps (your take on) the field as a whole feels about Dawkin's selfish gene hypothesis. For the group, Darwin and most everyone after him considered the individual organism to be the primary subject of natural selection. Dawkins thinks that individuals, instead, should be viewed as survival machines, and it's really the genes themselves that are in evolutionary competition.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:43am PT
|
It should only take another 137 posts or so to agree on the statement of the theory before resuming a rational discussion of its merits. :-)
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You've got a point there.
I've said what I'm looking for - simple straightforward evidence - but perhaps other posters may have more sophisticated tastes!
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:49am PT
|
Blight, evidence for what? Perhaps you could start by stating the theory as you understand it? After all, you can't ask for evidence in support of a theory, if you do not know what you are asking for. :-)
I have found that the longest running disagreements always stem from a lack of agreement on a precise definition of the problem. I.e. everyone has a different answer, because of a lack of a formal statement of the problem.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:54am PT
|
Lets help this thread evolve with some "facilitated variation" ignore the "Blight" a stuck loop, doomed to extinction, and work with some new knowledge. As a biology beginner, still studying for my visit with evo-devo step-daughter next week, I am really getting into this new book, "the plausibility of life" the authors theory seems to hold promise to explain some of this.
"Facilitated variation: an explanation of the organism's generation of complex phenotypic change form a small number of random changes of the genotype. We posit that the conserved components greatly facilitate evolutionary change by reducing the amount of genetic change required to generate phenotypic novelty, principally through their reuse in new combinations and in different parts of their adaptive range of performance. " from the authors (Kirchner and Gerhart).
I am a long way from grasping all this, but it seems that new genomic info is showing specifically how variation and novelty is not random, or from cosmic alterations or viruses. I appreciate the reading suggestions and diagrams from Aya and Jaybro upthread, so much to learn...
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:04am PT
|
Blight, I absolutely agree with you that what you do and what you believe as an alternative to evolution matter to the issue at hand (something I tried to point out before). However, an explanation of how you believe evolution to work does matter, as to those of us who do understand the theory of evolution, your question/questions do not make sense and demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the theory.
You write that "To sum this up succinctly: the theory of evolution states that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses," but the point is that this is false. Therefore, the question, "Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species," is generally irrelevant, as far as supporting or disproving evolution goes.
Like I said, I'd love to continue the discussion, but only after I know that you understand what the theory of evolution actually is. However, if you're just trolling, as I still believe you are, you will likely not answer the question ("but I asked you first!") which is also fine by me. What do I care?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:20am PT
|
eeyonkee, first I wanted to clarify that this is hardly my area of expertise. I did my graduate work in an ecology and evolutionary biology department, but I was definitely much more heavily involved in the ecology side - my PhD work was on community dynamics in the hudson river. I actually really don't like the evolution side because it's like all math... and I hate numbers.
Anyhow, I'm not sure that I exactly understand your question. Darwin considered the individual to be the subject of natural selection because he did not know about genes. In a sense, the individual still is, because the individual is the expression of the genes collected within.
If you're asking about something more along the lines of group selection, well... there's still plenty of debate going on about that in the evolutionary biology community!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:21am PT
|
Blight is just a troll or a very stubborn fundamentalist.
Discussing with him is completely meaningsless because he is never going to admitt that he might be wrong.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:24am PT
|
Peter, your question relates to the faithful reproduction of genetic information, which is necessary for special reproduction (and probably necessary for evolution), but is not sufficient to explain evolution. It probably is deserving of its own thread.
In fact, it would seem that some "unfaithful reproduction" of genetic material is necessary to explain evolution. This is probably what Blight is looking for. Examples of "unfaithful reproduction", but still a formal statement of the theory is necessary to make for rational analysis.
This is Aya's point, if I understood - that Blight's concept is inconsistent with the generally agreed statement of the theory. If that it true, it would explain the failure to resolve the issues.
Of course, Aya could offer her version of the theory. It should not require more than about 10 sentences or so, I think.
Raymond edit:
I think the statement asking for a demonstration is evidence that he admits that he could be wrong. I do not see evidence for the assertion of fundamentalism. Maybe you could offer a scientific statement, instead of a character assessment. :-)
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:27am PT
|
Ok, I can try to do it in less than ten sentences. Three words?
Descent with modification.
I'm not sure if that's enough....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!