Macro Evolution

[meogi]

Hence the question - if there is, how would you go about looking for it?

but it looks unhealthy when science rules out invetigation of an avenue of explanation

I'd start by hypothesizing an avenue of explanation. Of which I have no idea, you?

 

[Sidon]

I'd start by hypothesizing an avenue of explanation. Of which I have no idea, you?

Look for signatures of intelligence - on this point I believe the ID movement have a point - we do it in other sciences. Personally, I have no objection in principle with their stance that it is scientific to (at least) look for evidence.

Nevertheless - I can understand the objections to doing so that have been raised on this forum and elswhere. But I honestly don't agree that it's wrong to try to do. I am not lying, not being deliberately dishonest or wickedly ignorant. For reasons stated elswhere in this thread I simply do not agree with the logic of "never the Twain shall meet".

But I can live with our difference of opinion if you can. I'm not trying to insist you agree with me - just saying that if you think the ID guys have poor logic - how would you go about finding out?

You guys have to try to see things my way. In trying to get a fair view of all sides, people are bombarded with rhetoric from both camps. Both camps accuse the other of misrepresenting their own positions - both raise very good points (really, they do) but often what is lacking is the hard evidence. Instead there are references to undeniable evidences or overviews of such - but not the facts themselves.

Furthermore, I read a lot of "well they don't have a shred of evidence...". But if that's true - I'll work it out for myself

I promise this is the last time I'll go on about this - I did this time because I mentioned ID and I think "I'm gonna get a bunch of replies again telling me what I should be thinking" - not because anything you said warranted it meogi.

 

[Autodidact]

Look for signatures of intelligence - on this point I believe the ID movement have a point - we do it in other sciences. Personally, I have no objection in principle with their stance that it is scientific to (at least) look for evidence.

Nevertheless - I can understand the objections to doing so that have been raised on this forum and elswhere. But I honestly don't agree that it's wrong to try to do. I am not lying, not being deliberately dishonest or wickedly ignorant. For reasons stated elswhere in this thread I simply do not agree with the logic of "never the Twain shall meet".

But I can live with our difference of opinion if you can. I'm not trying to insist you agree with me - just saying that if you think the ID guys have poor logic - how would you go about finding out?

You guys have to try to see things my way. In trying to get a fair view of all sides, people are bombarded with rhetoric from both camps. Both camps accuse the other of misrepresenting their own positions - both raise very good points (really, they do) but often what is lacking is the hard evidence. Instead there are references to undeniable evidences or overviews of such - but not the facts themselves.

Furthermore, I read a lot of "well they don't have a shred of evidence...". But if that's true - I'll work it out for myself

I promise this is the last time I'll go on about this - I did this time because I mentioned ID and I think "I'm gonna get a bunch of replies again telling me what I should be thinking" - not because anything you said warranted it meogi.

Well it really doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it, it's fundamental to science. If you like we can have a discussion about the importance of methodological naturalism to science--in a separate thread. Anyway, the point is it's simply not up to you. No supernatural explanation can be included in science as currently defined. And I think you'll agree that science as it has been practiced for the last 4 centuries is doing rather well.

So, can we move on to talk about ToE.

Mostly I first want you to grasp that ToE is NOT the theory that there is no God. God is compatible with ToE, as with all scientific theories. Are we clear on that?

 

[Autodidact]

So, as I have asked several times (do you have me on ignore?) before I go into the extensive, monumental, really, evidence for ToE, do you have a firm grounding in what ToE actually says? Because if not, the evidence doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Sidon]

Sidon Johnhanks answered your request quite well, and you were appreciative of it. That's great, but you didn't give much of a reaction beyond that. Do you find it compelling? If so, does the fact that similar shared genetic "errors" occur in all sorts of taxa, and that they are pretty much exactly what we would expect under evolutionary common descent provide a compelling case?

Yes, It strong evidence. But in my experience, you can accept powerful evidence too quickly, only to find that there is another, equally convincing side to the story. So...

I mean, at what point do you figure you're going to stop and say, "Ok, I've seen enough. There is indeed a lot of evidence for evolutionary common descent"??

Well, I'll amass as much of the evidence as I can, and this is an excellent start. And when you tell me - "that's about it - that's what we've got". I'll see if there are any counter explanations. If the counter arguments seem compelling, then I'll see what the counter-counter-arguments are etc. If it comes down to a philosophy of "what science is" or "how we should think", I'll cross that bridge when i get to it.

Whatever decision I finally make, if I can, I know I'll be ridiculed by the opposite team, so to speak. I can live with that then. But now - before I have all the evidence - then ridicule and sarcasm have the potential to obscure my judgement. I usually find it hard to trust people who deliberately use straw men, ad homs etc because I think "If they're sure in their knowledge, they wouldn't need to resort to this" (I did just say I wouldn't mention this again - so this really is the last time"

Along those lines, probably one of the best confirmations of common descent is the fact that we can use the concept to discern obscure genetic functions. Now that we have so many genetic regions of so many species sequenced, there's a big demand in the field of "Ok, what does it all do".

A few years ago, some researchers put together a statistical model that is based on phylogenetics (the evolutionary relationship between taxa). When they input genetic sequences from taxa as diverse as flies, worms, and humans, the model successfully predicts genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. IOW, when we examine genetic sequences under the framework of evolutionary common descent, it allows us to figure out what genetic sequences do to a very, very high degree of accuracy.

If common descent weren't at all true, what accounts for that level of accuracy? If everything were created separately by a god, one would think the model wouldn't produce accurate results beyond mere chance. But not only does it work, it works outrageously well.

CLICK HERE for the paper on this project, and CLICK HERE for Carl Zimmer's excellent description of it.

Thanks for this, I'll look them up.

One last time, I really appreciate all evidence-based answers. Philosophical are fine too - but only where the evidence can't speak for itself. I may not say "thanks" to every single reply. So thanks in advance.

S

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, It strong evidence. But in my experience, you can accept powerful evidence too quickly, only to find that there is another, equally convincing side to the story. So...

That's kind of my point. Specific to the shared genetic errors and the non-functional GULO gene shared among primates, what exactly is the other "equally convincing side to the story"? And if there isn't one, then what?

Well, I'll amass as much of the evidence as I can, and this is an excellent start. And when you tell me - "that's about it - that's what we've got".

That's never going to happen, because as we're covering it with you here, more and more is being compiled and published in the scientific journals. The problem is, none of it is titled "New evidence for common ancestry", because from a scientific standpoint, the issue has already been settled. It would be like publishing a paper, "New evidence that pathogens cause some diseases".

I'll see if there are any counter explanations. If the counter arguments seem compelling, then I'll see what the counter-counter-arguments are etc. If it comes down to a philosophy of "what science is" or "how we should think", I'll cross that bridge when i get to it.

Fair enough. At least you seem willing to do some work. That's important, because it's going to take a lot.

Whatever decision I finally make, if I can, I know I'll be ridiculed by the opposite team, so to speak. I can live with that then. But now - before I have all the evidence - then ridicule and sarcasm have the potential to obscure my judgement. I usually find it hard to trust people who deliberately use straw men, ad homs etc because I think "If they're sure in their knowledge, they wouldn't need to resort to this" (I did just say I wouldn't mention this again - so this really is the last time"

That's fine.

Thanks for this, I'll look them up.

One last time, I really appreciate all evidence-based answers. Philosophical are fine too - but only where the evidence can't speak for itself. I may not say "thanks" to every single reply. So thanks in advance.

Be sure and get back to us with either specific counter-arguments, questions, or even your acknowledgement of the data. There's nothing worse than going through the trouble of providing someone with data and never hearing from them again.

 

[Sidon]

So, as I have asked several times (do you have me on ignore?) before I go into the extensive, monumental, really, evidence for ToE, do you have a firm grounding in what ToE actually says? Because if not, the evidence doesn't make sense to you.

I nearly put you on ignore, because you can be a little rough some times...

But no, sorry, I was reading through the threads and I forgot about you question. :sorry1:.

Tell me if my nutshell is wrong:

First cell starts (not evolution, I know); first cell replicates. In the replications some random mutations occur and so different "species" (a convenient human description - but mostly decided on by the mutated offspring unable to reproduce except by other mutated offspring (sort of)) of cells eventually arrive. As the cells and multi-celled organisms continue to reproduce, so there ar more random mutations. Meanwhile, environmental pressures "select" useful mutations by virtue of the fact that their host organism is better fitted for survival in the changing environment. This process has continued down to this day and will continue till our sun burns up... Evolution has no purpose or design. There is no "function" except that which has accidentally come about and which is selected for fitness. "Selection" itself implies no design, but is also an accident of circumstance.

That's just a nutshell view, mind you. Feel free to correct, but don't be rude.

 

[Gabethewiking]

In trying to get a fair view of all sides

ç

Sidon, you missed or ignored my previous post, never mind that, I want to ask you something I know most here wants to know, Are you really looking at all other sides fairly?

In the same sense you want to look at "the other side" of Evolution, have you done and promote the same about Gravity? Round-World Theory? Last 10 years of History?

Or is this a specific aim to attack Biological Evolution, and if it is, Why would all other areas be excluded? Are you ready to take in to account that there is Fairies controlling our current position on the planet and Not Gravity? What about Flat Earth, would you agree to have this side on School as well?

It would be alot of school time for an unlimited amount of "other sides", have you thought about this well and through, this is my question to you, feel free to give a none formal response, I think this is an important point many never really ask people who hold Evolutionary Deniers/Teach the Controversy opinions.

 

[Sidon]

That's never going to happen, because as we're covering it with you here, more and more is being compiled and published in the scientific journals. The problem is, none of it is titled "New evidence for common ancestry", because from a scientific standpoint, the issue has already been settled. It would be like publishing a paper, "New evidence that pathogens cause some diseases"..

Fine, I didn't mean it in the absolute sense. But I guess I mean "This is the main body of evidence"

Be sure and get back to us with either specific counter-arguments, questions, or even your acknowledgement of the data. There's nothing worse than going through the trouble of providing someone with data and never hearing from them again.

Ok, but in the beginning, it'll be mainly acknowledgements - I don't want to commit to say "Yes guys, You've sold it" until I'm ready to (if, indeed that happens). On that note as well, I may wait a while until I get a get a useful supply of evidence before I even look at the counter arguments (unless I've already heard them or can think of some myself). So don't expect them straight away.

One last word - I have spells away from the WWW - because I'm on PAYG and sometimes can't afford it for a few weeks.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Sidon, I've taken my previous Graph to give you a visual of "Macro" Evolution.

ç

As you can see there is very much lines, and these lines are constant change, eventually, We, Human Beings, decided that a species became a different species, this line can be hard to tell and usually are questioned by other people who wants to put this arbitrary line somewhere else. There is no difference between Macro and Micro Evolution, it is a word used to try to discribe a specific event, in this case, the Turn of a "New" species, if you lack the basic understanding of Evolution this will be very hard to understand so I want you to listen/talk to Autodidact and Jose whom are both offering to explain it to you, and they do it very well, far better then I could ever do.

Feel free to ask me things to, of course, but it is very important that you Listen to the Answers instead of just reading it and then simple ignore what was said, if you thought something was that it was not, Do you accept this, or ignore it? Do you change and understand that your prvious view was faulty? This is important else the entire debate is pointless, wouldn't you think?

 

[Sidon]

I didn't see this one either

Well it really doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it, it's fundamental to science.

We'll have to leave that there - because it doesn't matter to me that that's how you or any other human equal to both of us feel science should be defined. But, yes, I can live with our differences.

If you like we can have a discussion about the importance of methodological naturalism to science--in a separate thread.

That won't be necessary.

Mostly I first want you to grasp that ToE is NOT the theory that there is no God. God is compatible with ToE, as with all scientific theories. Are we clear on that?

I'm clear that may be true with certain religious models, but not all. I don't wan't dto go onto this yet - but it honestly doesn't matter - I get the point you are making and I will accept the evidence you give with this spirit in mind

 

[Sidon]

I want to ask you something I know most here wants to know, Are you really looking at all other sides fairly?

As fairly as I can. We all have bias, and I'm not immuned to that - but you have my word that I genuinel want to see what evidence there is

In the same sense you want to look at "the other side" of Evolution, have you done and promote the same about Gravity? Round-World Theory? Last 10 years of History?

No, I have no interest in gravity in so far as it will have no impact on the life-decisions I want to make. Same is true for round world theory or Last 10 years of History.

Or is this a specific aim to attack Biological Evolution, and if it is, Why would all other areas be excluded? Are you ready to take in to account that there is Fairies controlling our current position on the planet and Not Gravity? What about Flat Earth, would you agree to have this side on School as well?

I want to see what the evidence for evolution is. There is a Creation vs Evolution context (which I strongly implied in my opening question). Whereas, for reasons I've already mentioned, from where I currently stand the idea that a God may have created us has a case in principle that is not, to me, the same as "fairies exist" or "The earth is flat". This is partly intuitve because I agree with the principle that generally where there is design there is a designer. Life definitely looks designed so on the face of it a desgner seems a reasonable hypothesis. I am also aware however, that what is counter-intuitive is sometimes true. And I am also aware of Auto's point that ToE doesn't necessarily exclude a creator. And I'm able to consider the possibility that there isn't a creator.

If you are suspicious of my motives consider this: Suppose I was secretly winding you up - looking for the flaws, as it were. Then what? Well you will have presented an excellent case for evolution that would (hopefully) be free of the usual school-boy-fighting that is so distracting. Your thread would be a mini-Dawkins-style book. I, in my closed-minded ignorance would not benefit, neither would all the deluded creationists that are so often spoken of. But that wouldn't matter because you were never going to convince them anyway. However, you'd have an excellent thread for all who really were looking for the answers.

That's not a confession. The point is, I can't do anything to prove my motives to you. But what have you got to lose?

It would be alot of school time for an unlimited amount of "other sides", have you thought about this well and through, this is my question to you, feel free to give a none formal response.

Like everyone else, my time is limited. But, yes, I'm aware that it will take effort.

 

[Sidon]

Sidon, I've taken my previous Graph to give you a visual of "Macro" Evolution.

ç

As you can see there is very much lines, and these lines are constant change, eventually, We, Human Beings, decided that a species became a different species, this line can be hard to tell and usually are questioned by other people who wants to put this arbitrary line somewhere else. There is no difference between Macro and Micro Evolution, it is a word used to try to discribe a specific event, in this case, the Turn of a "New" species, if you lack the basic understanding of Evolution this will be very hard to understand so I want you to listen/talk to Autodidact and Jose whom are both offering to explain it to you, and they do it very well, far better then I could ever do.

Feel free to ask me things to, of course, but it is very important that you Listen to the Answers instead of just reading it and then simple ignore what was said, if you thought something was that it was not, Do you accept this, or ignore it? Do you change and understand that your prvious view was faulty? This is important else the entire debate is pointless, wouldn't you think?

Gabe, thank you. If I can clearly see from your evidence that my current understanding is in error then yes I will do my best. I did read this in your previous post, which you probably saw, and I'm sorry if my response failed to take your reasons for saying what you said into account.

 

[fantome profane]

That won't be necessary.

Is that because you understand methodological naturalism or are you saying you are not interested? If it is the former great, if it is the latter I want to tell you that methodological naturalism is very important to understanding science. This is the philosophical end of the discussion but it is very important nonetheless.

Just in case, this is a start
wikipedia

Naturalized epistemology (or Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism) which focuses on epistemology: This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[1] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Some philosophers extend this idea, to varying extents, to all of philosophy too. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view.

 

[Sidon]

Is that because you understand methodological naturalism or are you saying you are not interested? If it is the former great, if it is the latter I want to tell you that methodological naturalism is very important to understanding science. This is the philosophical end of the discussion but it is very important nonetheless.

Just in case, this is a start
wikipedia

I don't agree with this. but as I said I'm happy to continue with our differences acknowledged. Nevertheless, here's why:

It's hard to use an illustration that can't be straw-manned - but please at least try to see my point of view.

If I choose to make something, I may do so by a round the houses trial and error method where I start simple, add a bit more, mess around, take a bit away here, add a bit more there etc. Or I may plan things in my mind and then put together components so that I have a functioning unit that has a specific purpose. Suppose I choose the latter.

In a thousand years my machine is found and scientists say "we are going to work out how this got put together - but we are not going to allow for the possibility that it was deliberately made - that presumes an intelligence and is outside the scope of science"

They will certainly be able to work out how the machine works, but their assessment of how it came to be built will necessarily be wrong. It will be impossible for them to conclude the matter correctly. They will probably be able to hypothesise how the components got to be there on a component by component basis - but they will be wrong in their assessment that it came about "naturally".

 

[fantome profane]

I don't agree with this. but as I said I'm happy to continue with our differences acknowledged. Nevertheless, here's why:

It's hard to use an illustration that can't be straw-manned - but please at least try to see my point of view.

If I choose to make something, I may do so by a round the houses trial and error method where I start simple, add a bit more, mess around, take a bit away here, add a bit more there etc. Or I may plan things in my mind and then put together components so that I have a functioning unit that has a specific purpose. Suppose I choose the latter.

In a thousand years my machine is found and scientists say "we are going to work out how this got put together - but we are not going to allow for the possibility that it was deliberately made - that presumes an intelligence and is outside the scope of science"

They will certainly be able to work out how the machine works, but their assessment of how it came to be built will necessarily be wrong. It will be impossible for them to conclude the matter correctly. They will probably be able to hypothesise how the components got to be there on a component by component basis - but they will be wrong in their assessment that it came about "naturally".

I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that intelligence is outside the realm of science. No one is automatically discounting the possibility that something has been deliberately made. I know that may seem to be what is going on but it is not. It is in fact very common that scientists will be able to detect deliberate design. They generally do this by looking at the evidence, tool marks for example. But before we can even begin to look for evidence of design we must formulate a hypothesis of how it was designed, and then we can make predictions concerning what kind of evidence we would expect to find, then we can go look for that evidence. If we find it our hypothesis is confirmed, if not our hypothesis if falsified.

But this is not what the intelligent design movement does. I don’t expect you to take my word for this. Go find some intelligent design proponents and ask them how the bacterial flagellum was made. They will not give you an answer. They do not even have a hypothesis. They will tell you all about irreducible complexity and tell you that it could not have evolved (then I hope you will come back here and give us a chance to debunk this). But they will not tell you how it was made.

What is being discounted is not design. What is being discounted is the supernatural. And I realize that this still may seem unfair, but it is an essential part of science. We simply could not have science without it. And even here it does not mean that we have to automatically discount a supernatural explanation, it merely means that a supernatural explanation is not a scientific explanation. It could be that the correct answer is not a scientific answer. I have no way of knowing that, there is certainly no scientific way of determining this. Science is an attempt to find a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena.

 

[Autodidact]

I nearly put you on ignore, because you can be a little rough some times...

But no, sorry, I was reading through the threads and I forgot about you question. :sorry1:.

Tell me if my nutshell is wrong:

That's just a nutshell view, mind you. Feel free to correct, but don't be rude.

Sorry, I can't tell you the garbage I've been through with creationists. If I had to choose a single word, it would be dishonesty. Lie after lie after lie. One of the ways they lie to themselves is to refuse to grasp simple concepts, then pretend they don't exist. I've been through it a few hundred times, and lose my patience repeating the same simple concepts to each new soldier.

Yes, you've got the main idea. The core concept is that populations change over time, in a way analogous to how farmers breed animals for specific traits. When a group gets isolated, and changes over time enough so it can't breed with the other group, we call that a new species.

Do you agree that happens?

 

[Autodidact]

And are we clear that "God did it" is never an alternative explanation, because we're all proceeding on the assumption that God did it? So the question is not who, but how?

 

[Sidon]

I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that intelligence is outside the realm of science. No one is automatically discounting the possibility that something has been deliberately made. I know that may seem to be what is going on but it is not. It is in fact very common that scientists will be able to detect deliberate design. They generally do this by looking at the evidence, tool marks for example. But before we can even begin to look for evidence of design we must formulate a hypothesis of how it was designed, and then we can make predictions concerning what kind of evidence we would expect to find, then we can go look for that evidence. If we find it our hypothesis is confirmed, if not our hypothesis if falsified.

But this is not what the intelligent design movement does. I don’t expect you to take my word for this. Go find some intelligent design proponents and ask them how the bacterial flagellum was made. They will not give you an answer. They do not even have a hypothesis. They will tell you all about irreducible complexity and tell you that it could not have evolved (then I hope you will come back here and give us a chance to debunk this). But they will not tell you how it was made.

What is being discounted is not design. What is being discounted is the supernatural. And I realize that this still may seem unfair, but it is an essential part of science. We simply could not have science without it. And even here it does not mean that we have to automatically discount a supernatural explanation, it merely means that a supernatural explanation is not a scientific explanation. It could be that the correct answer is not a scientific answer. I have no way of knowing that, there is certainly no scientific way of determining this. Science is an attempt to find a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena.

Ok, if our agreement on this is absolutely essential to the discussion going forward, then I'm afraid we don't have it. I do, though, understand the objections to allowing religion into science - but i just don't agree that the objections are reason enough to exclude it. The distinction between Designer & Supernatural seems arbitrary to me. God is either there or he isn't.

You mention the flagellum. It seems to me that it would be impossible for ID proponents to explain how the bacterial flagellum was made, because say the explanation was that it was deliberately built and they illustrated this by building an outboard motor, that would be meaningless because it falls outside of the realms of science as decribed by man. No matter what level of explanatory detail that could be postulated - the explanation would be "not allowed" because it appeals to the "supernatural".

And when you say that it could be that "the correct answer is not a scientific answer" you must know as well as I do that if you say to someone that a theory is not scientific - in everyday language you are saying it's wrong. I appreciate that you are concerned that it seems unfair. It does.

That's why I just wanted to see the evidence without you first having to squeeze me into a box. (I appreciate that it;s not "bad" or intended as a "trap" - but it's not something I'm willing to let happen). You may not agree with my logic - but neither can I abondon it - because that would not be right.

So for the very last time. Honestly. Thank you all for your answers.

 

[Autodidact]

Tell you what, Sidon, if you have a specific hypothesis that involves a Divine Creator, one that meets other scientific criteria, such as potential falsification, being capable of making specific predictions, and so forth, we'll look at it, O.K.?