Evolution My ToE

[ImmortalFlame]

When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

Micro and macro-evolution, speciation.

 

[nPeace]

Because the theory, the model, of the process makes testable predictions.
Predictions concerning what data we should and should not be able to find.

For example, if "hair" is a trait that evolved in the lineage of mammals, then we should not be able to find any frogs or fish or birds with "hair". And we don't.

If chimps are our closest cousins, then we should share more ERV's with chimps then we do with cats or dogs. And we do.

If mammals evolved in the past X million years, we should not find mammal fossils in geological layers older then that. And we don't.

etc etc etc etc.

These kinds of predictions can be about details, or they can be about big big picture stuff. Big picture stuff would be things like phylogenetic trees based on comparative genomics and those trees needing to correspond and make sense to things like geographic distribution of species.

I understand all the subjective deductive reasoning. This is not observing something directly. It's still back at reasoning, making inferences, interpreting, drawing conclusions from those, having different opinions, making assumptions, etc., etc. We are still back at where we started.

By the way, you said ...
I've lost count how many times I brought phylogenetic trees and tiktaalik, with explanations, to your attention. All I got from you was handwaving, dodging and arguing strawmen. Only to then repeat the same nonsense as if I never said anything.

Tell me, why would I try again? Why would it be different this time?

If you don't want to discuss with me, why are you responding?
If you want to discuss with me, that's okay, but you will first have to address the post here, and the one below it - because they address things you keep bringing up. (I brought up phylogenetic trees too... many times.)

Otherwise, we are both saying the same thing... "why would I try again? Why would it be different this time?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So? Shall we go back to peer review?
If my doctor believes in evolution, I'll still go to her when I need someone knowledgeable in that branch of science. She may recommend something based on her knowledge, as well as the "general knowledge" (consensus) of doctors. But, as you probably know, they have various viewpoints and will often recommend what is the majority opinion of treatment. Yet can be wrong.
Surveys of various sorts show various things, as in elections, "testing out" can prove right or wrong, while some people will still support the unsupportable, even though they have their reasons.

Anyone can be wrong about anything.

The difference is that science actively keeps that in mind, and that any future discovery has the potential of disproven currently held concensus.
In fact, the entire scientific method is geared towards that. When you set up an experiment to test a hypothesis, you actual don't try to show it correct. Instead, you actually try to disprove it instead.
When all attempts at showing something wrong fails, it's quite likely that you have a solid idea on your hands.

On the other hand, if you set something up specifically to get the answer that you want to get - chances are rather big that you'll get the answers you were shooting for.

So the way to avoid that, is to instead ask the question "what do i have to do to NOT get the answer I expect / want?"
So, to put it extremely simplisticly, if you wish to test newtonian physics, you don't set up an experiment to have apples fall down.
No. Instead, you try till you are blue in the face to find circumstances where apples in fact do NOT fall down. Where the ideas of Newtonian physics do NOT hold up.

I'm sure you've heared it said at times that in fact the most exciting times for a scientist, is to find out that we are WRONG about something. Because that's an opportunity to learn and make progress.
The greatest achievement a scientist can have, is to show all his/her collegues / peers to be wrong. That's when nobel prizes are handed out.

Otherwise, you're just upholding the status quo.

There's nothing as boring in science as a test that just confirms previous results / beliefs.


In religion, the mentality seems to be the exact opposite. There, the idea is rather to clinge as much as possible to the existing beliefs. In religion, finding out that certain core beliefs are actually wrong, leads to a full blown faith crisis / disaster.

In religion, it is the status quo that is the preferred outcome.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was not a good comparison. The scientific method put materials together harnessing wind power after great thought and experimentation by humans. The airplane did not evolve or come about on its own as you believe evolution did (or does). The invention of the airplane required human thought and skill.

You're still completely missing his point, eventhough it's explained in the very post you are replying to....


The example was to show that the scientific method works. Evolution theory, like all other scientific theories, is a product of the scientific method. A method that demonstrably works and is very succesfull at unraveling the mysteries of reality and explaining them.

 

[nPeace]

Micro and macro-evolution, speciation.

I find you usually say thing that I don't read in papers... so I don't know.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions. Each study that identifies significant correlations between evolutionary events, processes or outcomes can generate new predictions that can be further tested with different datasets, allowing a cumulative process that may narrow down on plausible explanations, or lead to rejection of other explanations as inconsistent or unsupported. A similar approach can be taken even for unique events, for example by comparing patterns in different regions, lineages, or time periods. I will illustrate the promise and pitfalls of these approaches using a range of examples, and discuss the problems of inferring causality from significant evolutionary associations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know, but let's cut him a little slack right now. After all it is just him against several posters. That can get to be a bit overwhelming. But I still don't want to give away the store. He just claimed that the evidence of evolution was not testable. You have worked in biology, perhaps you could explain to him how some evidence is tested.

I believe he has me on ignore. Some people do not want to view reality. Simple answers that do not require observation, analysis and thinking are what they want.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I find you usually say thing that I don't read in papers... so I don't know.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions. Each study that identifies significant correlations between evolutionary events, processes or outcomes can generate new predictions that can be further tested with different datasets, allowing a cumulative process that may narrow down on plausible explanations, or lead to rejection of other explanations as inconsistent or unsupported. A similar approach can be taken even for unique events, for example by comparing patterns in different regions, lineages, or time periods. I will illustrate the promise and pitfalls of these approaches using a range of examples, and discuss the problems of inferring causality from significant evolutionary associations.

Finding one article and pasting it is not a compelling argument.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution above the level of species. I have repeatedly given numerous examples where evolution above the level of species has been directly observed:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

Please don't just cut and paste one context-less paper as if that makes your point for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe he has me on ignore. Some people do not want to view reality. Simple answers that do not require observation, analysis and thinking are what they want.

Too bad. He does go back and take people off of ignore. He got over his "mad" with me. At any rate my attitude is that most of my posts are for lurkers. Creationists that actively debate have almost all drank the Kool-Aid. They do not respond well to evidence at any rate.

 

[nPeace]

It was not a good comparison. The scientific method put materials together harnessing wind power after great thought and experimentation by humans. The airplane did not evolve or come about on its own as you believe evolution did (or does). The invention of the airplane required human thought and skill.

There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

Finding one article and pasting it is not a compelling argument.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution above the level of species. I have repeatedly given numerous examples where evolution above the level of species has been directly observed:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

Please don't just cut and paste one context-less paper as if that makes your point for you.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

Now please. These are not mere opinons. That is what you post. They are what appear to be rather uncomfortable facts that you do not appear to be able to deal with.

You complain about rudeness and dishonesty and you are guilty of both in that post. If you want people to be polite to you then be polite to them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand all the subjective deductive reasoning

There's nothing "subjective" about this. These are objective predictions that naturally flow from the model.
Like when a fresh layer of snow fell during the night and there is a hypothesis that person X left his house that same morning at 8, there is a prediction that naturally flows from that saying "then there should be footprints left in the snow".

Like if there there is a hypothesis that earlier today there was a fire in your car, that there should now be remnants of said fire, like blackened carseats or whatever.

It's pure cause and effect. Not subjective at all.

If humans and chimps share a young ancestor, then we should share more genetic markers with chimps then we do with dogs, with whom we share a much older ancestor. And if we find that we in fact share more markers with dogs then with chimps, then the hypothesis of us sharing a younger ancestor with chimps is necessarily incorrect.

If that prediction were "subjective" then we could just change our minds when we see it doesn't work. But we can't. Because the prediction is OBJECTIVE. "if a, then b". if we find c instead of be, then it naturally and objectively follows that "a" is incorrect at worst. At best, there is another still unknown factor X missing from A, which made the prediction itself wrong while a is essentially still correct.

Again: nothing about this, is subjective. This is not just "opinion".

This is not observing something directly.

Direct observation isn't always possible. But that doesn't mean that we therefor can't know anything about it.

Just about every murder or other crime can't be directly observed or repeated. But surely you understand that that doesn't stop us from being able to solve said crimes, right?

It's still back at reasoning, making inferences, interpreting, drawing conclusions from those, having different opinions, making assumptions, etc., etc. We are still back at where we started.

No. It's not opinion. It's objective analysis of data, drawing conclusions and then testing your conclusions.

By the way, you said ...
I've lost count how many times I brought phylogenetic trees and tiktaalik, with explanations, to your attention. All I got from you was handwaving, dodging and arguing strawmen. Only to then repeat the same nonsense as if I never said anything.

Tell me, why would I try again? Why would it be different this time?

If you don't want to discuss with me, why are you responding?

I want to discuss it, but only with someone who is actually interested and can be intellectually honest about it.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that predictions of evolution theory, like some of the examples I've given, are objective in nature. What use is it to discuss the evidence with someone, if that someone couldn't even recognise the concept of evidence if there life dependend on it?

It's like this stuff hasn't been explained to you countless times already.

But I'm a patient man and I have faith (ha!) in your capacity to think rationally and logically and honestly. So whenever you're ready, we are here for you. But keep in mind that opening up your mind to the actual science WILL force you to rethink some of the core fundamentalist dogma's you are religiously required to adhere to.

If you want to discuss with me, that's okay, but you will first have to address the post here, and the one below it - because they address things you keep bringing up. (I brought up phylogenetic trees too... many times.)

Otherwise, we are both saying the same thing... "why would I try again? Why would it be different this time?

Those posts have already been addressed by others and explained to you.

 

[nPeace]

Too bad. He does go back and take people off of ignore. He got over his "mad" with me. At any rate my attitude is that most of my posts are for lurkers. Creationists that actively debate have almost all drank the Kool-Aid. They do not respond well to evidence at any rate.

I am the kind of guy who believe in giving people chances. I watch for changes and respond accordingly. I think you try. I know it's not easy for you, but you try. There are some that I am not seeing that.
In fact, I don't see all because I don't look at the posts of at least two individual, and that's because of the level of . However, I am sure they are the same.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There is a reason they don't see your point. I understand.

Because they missed the point of what I was writing. I never compared evolutionary theory and using a computer. I explained that twice.

So there are different opinions. my point exactly. I can find numerous, but I won't waste our time.

Do you or do you not understand the definition of macro-evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am the kind of guy who believe in giving people chances. I watch for changes and respond accordingly. I think you try. I know it's not easy for you, but you try. There are some that I am not seeing that.
In fact, I don't see all because I don't look at the posts of at least two individual, and that's because of the level of . However, I am sure they are the same.

Good. Then do you think that you could try to learn what is and what is not evidence? Many of the posts you write about articles or their contents tell us that you either do not understand evidence or you are a liar, and I do not believe that you are a liar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Too bad. He does go back and take people off of ignore. He got over his "mad" with me. At any rate my attitude is that most of my posts are for lurkers. Creationists that actively debate have almost all drank the Kool-Aid. They do not respond well to evidence at any rate.

Since my posts on science are based on a knowledge of science and evidence, do not rely on conspiracy theories of follow church doctrine, they will always be ignored, even if they are responded to.

You know how it is.

Maybe if I made excessively long posts, meandering aimlessly from topic to topic and off topic, while varying format, font, use of numerous colors and include abusive use of cutesy emogis, they might be better received.

 

[shunyadragon]

So? Shall we go back to peer review?

Go back to peer review if you like. You could not add anything new that I and others have already responded to. There are of course very human problems with peer review and science in general, but you have presented nothing to indicate that science is not the self correcting discipline the does find shoddy and poor research over time. The article you cited showed that ~30% of research articles have accurately passed peer review. Guess what that means the other ~70% shoddy or poor research was discovered rejected and in later research was corrected.

I also presented another reference concerning peer review that helps come to a balenced view, and yes there are problems, but over time science deals with the problems.

You have failed to answer some key questions as which disciplines in science have different reliability in the peer review process. There is a difference where peer reviewed publications in economics, social scientists, Industry funded research and research based on statistical results are the least reliable. All you have sided are lumping articles that do not make differentiation based on discipline.

If my doctor believes in evolution, I'll still go to her when I need someone knowledgeable in that branch of science. She may recommend something based on her knowledge, as well as the "general knowledge" (consensus) of doctors. But, as you probably know, they have various viewpoints and will often recommend what is the majority opinion of treatment. Yet can be wrong.

Physicians are not well qualified in the basic sciences that involve evolution, nor do they do research in the fields that involve evolution, nor the physical history of earth and cosmos.

Surveys of various sorts show various things, as in elections, "testing out" can prove right or wrong, while some people will still support the unsupportable, even though they have their reasons.

First science does not prove anything. It has a process of falsification of theories and hypothesis that is self correcting over time.

The consensus of science is not based on elections, nor the consensus of public opinion. All the sciences including evolution, physical history of the earth and the universe which are based on education, research and discoveries by competent scientists.

It is a significant fact that out of tens of thousands of scientists in the world in the science specialties of evolution endorse evolution, but the fundamentalists can hardly come up a couple dozen scientists at best in the related fields to evolution. By far most 'people' on the Creationist lists are engineers, physicians, computer specialists, or economists. PhD's do not make one qualified in the fields related to evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

So? Shall we go back to peer review?

Go back to peer review if you like. You could not add anything new that I and others have already responded to. There are of course very human problems with peer review and science in general, but you have presented nothing to indicate that science is not the self correcting discipline the does find shoddy and poor research over time. The article you cited showed that ~30% of research articles have accurately passed peer review. Guess what that means the other ~70% shoddy or poor research was discovered rejected and in later research has corrected.

You have failed to answer some key questions as which disciplines in science have different reliability in the peer review process. There is a difference where peer reviewed publications in economics, social scientists, Industry funded research and research based on statistical results are the least reliable. All you have sided are lumping articles that do not make differentiation based on discipline.

If my doctor believes in evolution, I'll still go to her when I need someone knowledgeable in that branch of science. She may recommend something based on her knowledge, as well as the "general knowledge" (consensus) of doctors. But, as you probably know, they have various viewpoints and will often recommend what is the majority opinion of treatment. Yet can be wrong.

Physicians are not well qualified in the basic sciences that involve evolution, nor do they do research in the fields that involve evolution, nor the physical history of earth and cosmos.

Surveys of various sorts show various things, as in elections, "testing out" can prove right or wrong, while some people will still support the unsupportable, even though they have their reasons.

First science does not prove anything. It has a process of falsification of theories and hypothesis that is self correcting over time, which you yourself noted that theories and hypothesis .are 'revised, and change over time, and sometimes big time.'

The consensus of science is not based on elections, nor the consensus of public opinion. All the sciences including evolution, physical history of the earth and the universe which are based on education, objective verifiable evidence, research and discoveries by competent scientists.

It is a significant fact that out of tens of thousands of scientists in the world in the science specialties of evolution the fundamentalists can hardly come up a couple dozen scientists at best in the related fields to evolution. By far most 'people' on the Creationist lists are engineers, physicians, computer specialists, or economists. PhD's do not make one qualified in the fields related to evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

Newtonian science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand all the subjective deductive reasoning. This is not observing something directly. It's still back at reasoning, making inferences, interpreting, drawing conclusions from those, having different opinions, making assumptions, etc., etc. We are still back at where we started.

There is no question that Quantum Mechanics and the nature of the particles at the plank level are valid sccepted science, but nothing has been observed directly

By the way, you said ...
I've lost count how many times I brought phylogenetic trees and tiktaalik, with explanations, to your attention. All I got from you was handwaving, dodging and arguing strawmen. Only to then repeat the same nonsense as if I never said anything.

. . . because all you brought up was selective references that were severely biased based on justifying a religious agenda, and 98% of the scientists related to the field of evolution would not accept your conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I find you usually say thing that I don't read in papers... so I don't know.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions. Each study that identifies significant correlations between evolutionary events, processes or outcomes can generate new predictions that can be further tested with different datasets, allowing a cumulative process that may narrow down on plausible explanations, or lead to rejection of other explanations as inconsistent or unsupported. A similar approach can be taken even for unique events, for example by comparing patterns in different regions, lineages, or time periods. I will illustrate the promise and pitfalls of these approaches using a range of examples, and discuss the problems of inferring causality from significant evolutionary associations.

You read papers selectively to justify your religious agenda.