Cutting-Edge Research in Biology by ID Scientists (CC & ID Content)

[eternalsummer]

 

As I understand it, you are arguing that opinions can influence or determine actions, and thus change which future facts will come into being.  I think I understand your point.  I have a problem thinking of it as facts in the future being changed, because as I see it they don't exist yet.  The future is the realm of predictions, probabilities and potentialities, but not yet facts.  In that way, I can see that opinions can have a causal effect on whether candidate A or B is elected, but I can't think of it as changing the fact that "candidate A is elected" into "candidate B is elected" because neither of those statements are yet fact and only one of them will ever be fact.  But I can think of it as affecting which future fact comes into being, so perhaps that is mostly a semantic distinction.  Thanks for exploring the issue.

 

Right; only it's not "facts in the future being changed" directly; that would require time-travel.  It's facts in the present being changed into the future.

[songsparrow]

Deleted, because upon reflection I think it was too tangential to this thread.

[lea1]

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a scientist who stated that evolution is a fact. Scientists know that scientific theories are not facts.

 

Do you believe that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium? If so, is that because your bible told you it is? Is it because you have been to the sun and tested its components? Or is it because you believe that scientists can observe phenomena, make predictions based on those phenomena, and test those predictions?

 

Regardless of what scientists state or know, evolution is taught as fact in schools, museums and tons of books and those who doubt it are ridiculed and compared to flat-earthers.  Most people don't search out answers for themselves.  They believe what others in authority tell them.

 

The sun is something we can see and test in the here and now.  The elemental composition of the sun or any star for that matter is determined from emission and absorption spectra.   You can break up sunlight into it's various wavelengths and you will see gaps in that spectrum. Each element (like hydrogen, helium, etc.) causes specific gaps in the spectrum. 

 

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced.  The cat kind of animals have cats.  The dog kind of animals have dogs and people have people.  You don't see any half dog half cat animals running around.  You don't see any half human half animals running around and no transitional fossils have been found.

 

As for the Bible, if investigated, it is a very difficult book to doubt.  It was written as many books over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors (many of them eye witnesses), including a prince, a fisherman, a shepherd, an army general, a king's food taster, a prime minister, a doctor, a king, a tax collector and many more.  Parts of it were written in the wilderness, in a dungeon, on a hillside, in prison, while traveling, on an island, on three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), and yet the facts of the Bible all agree and it all tells the same story. 

 

It was passed down through the generations without mistakes for over 2000 years.  There are almost 25,000 ancient copies of the New Testament alone.  There are far more old copies of the Bible than of any other ancient book.  There are only 643 early copies of Homer's Iliad and only 10 old copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.  And these old pieces/copies of the Bible are really old, including pieces of the book of John that are only 50 years older than John's very first copy.  There are copies of the whole New Testament that are only 200 years old.  The oldest copies of the Iliad are 400 years older than their first writing and the oldest copies of the Gallic Wars are more than 700 years older than their first writing.

[Haiku]

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced.  

 

This is patently incorrect. There are multiple instances of witnessing evolution and speciation. Often it involves animals with extremely short lifespans, where humans can observe hundreds or thousands of generations in a (relatively) short amount of time.

 

As to your history lesson on the bible, I'm not sure what your point was.

[Joanne]

Regardless of what scientists state or know, evolution is taught as fact in schools, museums and tons of books and those who doubt it are ridiculed and compared to flat-earthers. Most people don't search out answers for themselves. They believe what others in authority tell them.

 

The sun is something we can see and test in the here and now. The elemental composition of the sun or any star for that matter is determined from emission and absorption spectra. You can break up sunlight into it's various wavelengths and you will see gaps in that spectrum. Each element (like hydrogen, helium, etc.) causes specific gaps in the spectrum.

 

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced. The cat kind of animals have cats. The dog kind of animals have dogs and people have people. You don't see any half dog half cat animals running around. You don't see any half human half animals running around and no transitional fossils have been found.

 

As for the Bible, if investigated, it is a very difficult book to doubt. It was written as many books over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors (many of them eye witnesses), including a prince, a fisherman, a shepherd, an army general, a king's food taster, a prime minister, a doctor, a king, a tax collector and many more. Parts of it were written in the wilderness, in a dungeon, on a hillside, in prison, while traveling, on an island, on three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), and yet the facts of the Bible all agree and it all tells the same story.

 

It was passed down through the generations without mistakes for over 2000 years. There are almost 25,000 ancient copies of the New Testament alone. There are far more old copies of the Bible than of any other ancient book. There are only 643 early copies of Homer's Iliad and only 10 old copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. And these old pieces/copies of the Bible are really old, including pieces of the book of John that are only 50 years older than John's very first copy. There are copies of the whole New Testament that are only 200 years old. The oldest copies of the Iliad are 400 years older than their first writing and the oldest copies of the Gallic Wars are more than 700 years older than their first writing.

Science is taught as *theory* in scientific terms - all of it from gravity to evolution. IDers never add THAT onto the "theory" label and they attach it to evolution exclusively as if ALL science is not taught using the scientific vernacular.

 

Your paragraphs about the Bible contain several errors and the parts that are "true" are some that drive me away - not closer to - the faith of Christianity.

[albeto.]

Personal experience is a given in both cases.  Religion is good at conveying ideas of eternity, totality, mutuality and morality (eg. karma); a basis for maintaining tradition and social order, etc.  Science and religion simply exist for different things.

 

 Science and religion are, by conventional definition, methodologies by which we seek to gain understanding of the world. One utilizes a specialized methodology by which such things as observation, data collection, critical analysis, falsification, and peer review are applied. The other relies on accepting as true someone's claim that an idea has been revealed by a supernatural source. Science does address such concepts as eternity and morality. I don't know what you mean by "totality" or "mutuality." 

 

 

It's not direct evidence because you're not measuring/observing the thing itself.  You're measuring an after-effect.

 

Educators should know how the scientific method works. Your comments throughout this thread reflect an alarming lack of understanding for one who is responsible for education. 

 

 

[Free]

ETA: Oops I seem to have messed up some of my quotes. They read as albeto(.), when I am actually responding to ananemone.

 

I'm not saying scientific evidence is not valuable, but it is not the be-all, end-all.  Science is a tool and tools are secondary.  Our primary understanding comes from within.  If you don't believe me, take it from Einstein;

 

"The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung [literally, empathy or 'feeling one's way in'] is developed by experience."

 

Science is indeed a tool and a method, but turns out that science has proven to be a spectacularly consistent, reliable and successful method for understanding the world and for constructing our knowledge base.

 

It is easy for some people to claim that Intuition can be a useful tool, when that some person happens to be Einstein, but does intuition come anywhere close to science in consistence and reliability?

 

Indeed, a lot of our current scientific understanding is counter-intuitive. The fact that the earth is big ball freely floating in space is counter-intuitive. Many of science’s most interesting findings – heliocentrism, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics are all counter-intuitive.

 

Einstein says that intuition is developed by experience. I would go further to say that intuition is also developed by knowledge. Your intuition can mislead you to incorrect conclusions if it is based on misunderstanding the current science.

Intuition itself is not logical or scientific, and Einstein says that all of physics rests on it.

 

No, all of physics does not rely on intuition (and neither does Einstein say so). Some physicists most certainly do, and many other physicists make breakthroughs by challenging intuition.

Because there are multiple perspectives with which to understand the world; science is only one of them.

 

And what are these other perspectives with which to understand the world. How many significant findings have these other perspectives added to our understanding of the world? I would sure be interested to know.

 

What science holds currently and has always held is that one cannot see beyond an event horizon.  You may believe it will be possible some day but that's an act of faith on your part ;)

 

Scientific progress is fuelled by the relentless nature of human curiosity, spirit of adventure, yearning for knowledge and willingness to persevere against impossible odds. I agree that humility is important for a scientist, but IMO so is hubris ;). I think it would be presumptuous on my part to think that my lack of understanding and imagination translates to a limit on science.

Consider morality.  It is something deeply ingrained in us, in our subconscious and unconscious brains.  It inspires feelings and opinions in us that have nothing directly to do with science, which resides in our relatively immature cerebral cortex, our reflective part.  Our moral brains have developed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  Human science is a few thousand years old, tops.  Reflection is after the fact.

 

You are confusing “moral behavior†such as empathy & altruism with “moralityâ€.

 

Moral behavior is just one component of animal intelligence, some other components of which include memory, problem solving and social living. It would be impossible to argue which came first – moral behavior or other aspects of intelligence such as the capacity to think. In all probability all aspects of intelligence evolved side by side.

 

Human Morality - a system of social and cultural laws - on the other hand is as much a human construct as the scientific method. You have claimed in several posts that morality follows some universal physical laws. Yet we find that morality varies with culture. Morality evolves over time. And even with a single culture there are people who hold different moral values. There is nothing universal, unchanging or absolute about human morality. In fact there may be as many versions of moralities as there are humans.

[Morality] can be explained superficially like you can explain an ocean by looking at the surface and calling it blue; that's not how we fundamentally understand morality.  How we fundamentally understand morality is how we experience morality, and how we experience morality is subconsciously/unconsciously, not scientifically.  Again, consider the difference between a reflection and the thing in itself.

 

For some supporting science on the matter, see de Waal;

 

"We have a lot of feelings and tendencies that drive us to moral solutions, and yes, we often then later try to justify these solutions and come up with reasons for them, but that's often secondarily."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/health/lifes-work-de-waal/

 

I think you are misunderstanding De Waal. De Waal is not claiming that there is an external source for morality, but rather his research shows morality evolved because of brain biology. De Waal also draws a distinction between moral behaviour and morality in this essay:

 

At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.†This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves.

...

This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

 

And this is exactly where Sam Harris comes in, because he believes that we can arrive at these “universal standards of morality†through rational investigation. He says in this article:

 

Throughout the book [The Moral Landscape] I make reference to a hypothetical space that I call “the moral landscapeâ€â€”a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering. Different ways of thinking and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing.

 

As parents and home-educators I think we can appreciate this position. Definitely the science of child psychology and development has informed my own attitudes on the ways to parent my child such as to maximize his emotional well-being. The science of neuroplasticity, cognition and learning has helped me approach my child’s education differently. The science of the brain has helped me become more compassionate and kinder and less judgemental. In short, the landscape of my moral values has been influenced by science.

 

[albeto.]

As I understand it, both you and Tara are correct. It is considered a fact that common descent with modification happened. It is considered a fact because so much evidence supports it that it is no longer really contested. However, there is much about the TOE that is not considered a fact. For example, we know natural selection plays a large role in the fact that evolution happens, but we aren't sure how much and to what extent other factors also drive the process.

 

It is a scientific fact that bacteria can cause human diseases. But so much around that fact is being revised and clarified, because there is still much to learn about the "how". Same with evolution. Common descent with modification (including humans) happened. All life shares common ancestry. But the "how" is being worked out.

 

I'm not sure I understand. Tara said one would be hard pressed to find a scientist who stated that evolution is a fact, that scientists know that scientific theories are not facts. I explained the opposite is true. 

 

 

The rest of your comment is similar to the quote I posted, namely that there are still fascinating details of the theory yet to explore. 

[lewelma]

I had to have a Tim Tam to cope.

 

I'm having so much trouble keeping my mouth shut. Sigh.  I think I will have a TimTam too.  What is your favourite?  I like the mocha ones.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Catwoman]

You don't see any half human half animals running around

Clearly, you have never been in a Walmart at 3 am or you wouldn't be saying that.

 

The evidence speaks for itself. ;)

[Free]

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced.  The cat kind of animals have cats.  The dog kind of animals have dogs and people have people.  You don't see any half dog half cat animals running around.  You don't see any half human half animals running around and no transitional fossils have been found.

 

 Do you understand the theory of evolution?

[albeto.]

For example, what, in particular?  

 

(I always find it intriguing when people tell me what others can or can't believe...)

 

For one example, the effect of death and decay on perception and self-awareness. 

[Onceuponatime]

For one example, the effect of death and decay on perception and self-awareness. 

 

:iagree:

 

 

Science is thoroughly exploring the mind-body connection and has found there is no reason to believe that any part of our psyche can outlast our death. What people once thought was the soul or personhood has already been explained in purely brain function terms. The findings of brain science are fascinating and  extremely counter intuitive. We don't think the way we think we think. :)

[Mom-ninja.]

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced.  The cat kind of animals have cats.  The dog kind of animals have dogs and people have people.  You don't see any half dog half cat animals running around.  You don't see any half human half animals running around and no transitional fossils have been found.

 

You are grossly misinformed about evolution. You really think evolution means that there is the possibility that half cat, half dog animals could be running around? You are not aware that many transitional fossils have been found?

 

I see why you don't think evolution is real. You don't understand it or know anything accurate about it.

[flyingiguana]

OK, I have to clarify.  My original exasperated post in response to the original post was not over what people can or can't believe, or whether there is or is not a god.

 

My major problem is with how creationists and ID'ers misrepresent science in order to make their opinions look more plausible.  They set up a straw man, knock it down, and then crow about how much smarter they are.  Problem is, they either don't understand the scientific method (and think they've invented a pale shadow of it themselves), or they understand it perfectly and are using this faulty logic to convince people who aren't bright enough to see what they're doing.

 

Also, there really is no scientific evidence for god.  There never will be.  If there were, then it wouldn't be god anymore.  It would be a creator, perhaps, but not god in the sense of the unknowable.

 

For the Bible to be proof of God, it would have to be proved to be the word of God itself.  Which is a bit circular.  There is no outside evidence for the Bible being the literal word of God.

 

One could have FAITH that these things were true.  But that is not scientific proof.

 

But let me repeat -- I am mostly offended by ID'ers and creationists misrepresenting science, then claiming its method as their own invention, then using the scientific method in ways it can't be used.

 

In a previous thread on this issue, I was accused of being arrogant for pointing out that the ID "scientists" are either doing things wrong or not being completely honest.  The only arrogance I can see in this situation is the lies they put out. 

 

They ARE lies and misrepresentations.  Call me old fashioned, but I find that offensive.

 

If they were honest (or perhaps brighter?), they would see that what they are doing and cut it out.  They would stop duping gullible people.

 

This has nothing to do with beliefs or God, or faith.  It's just that I really, really hate to see people misusing the scientific method, and then blaming actual scientists for pointing out the flaws.

 

Because I would hope our society is moving towards more enlightenment, not less.

 

Which is not to say that religion is "wrong".  Although I'm sure an ID'er, deep down, would believe that was the logical conclusion from anyone criticizing their lack of science.  Problem is, they don't understand logic either.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Do you understand the theory of evolution?

 

There is a very good thread explaining evolution very clearly on the forums. There seems to be some confusion on what it means. It's an excellent explanation and I learned so much from it.

 

 

I'm on my phone or I'd find the link.

[TracyP]

Thank you, thank you, flyingiguana.

 

I was among the duped for a very long time. It is embarrassing to see what I fell for. It is embarrassing to remember the arguments I made. *sigh* I finally educated myself on evolution and I see now what these sites are doing. It is beyond frustrating to watch what they do and to see others fall for it. This is not about God or the Bible, IMO. This is about people, who often have something to gain financially, misleading those who are not educated on ToE. It is incredibly disturbing to me, since I once fell for it.

[TracyP]

There is a very good thread explaining evolution very clearly on the forums. There seems to be some confusion on what it means. It's an excellent explanation and I learned so much from it.

 

 

I'm on my phone or I'd find the link.

 

Here it is:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/

 

For anybody interested in understanding evolution, I also recommend Why Evolution is True and Your Inner Fish.

[lea1]

Science is taught as *theory* in scientific terms - all of it from gravity to evolution. IDers never add THAT onto the "theory" label and they attach it to evolution exclusively as if ALL science is not taught using the scientific vernacular.

 

Your paragraphs about the Bible contain several errors and the parts that are "true" are some that drive me away - not closer to - the faith of Christianity.

 

You can keep saying that science is taught as theory but it does not change the fact that many people end up hearing the message that it is fact.  When I recently went through the Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. the information about evolution was everywhere and they did not spend lots of time discussing how it is a theory.  Anyone here watch Friends?  Remember the episode when Phoebe was arguing with Ross about evolution.  He said more than once it was a fact.

 

Where are the errors in the facts I included about the Bible?   I don't understand how these facts would drive someone away from Christianity, as they are pretty straight forward.  Can you explain further?

 

 

[eternalsummer]

 

 Science and religion are, by conventional definition, methodologies by which we seek to gain understanding of the world.  One utilizes a specialized methodology by which such things as observation, data collection, critical analysis, falsification, and peer review are applied. The other relies on accepting as true someone's claim that an idea has been revealed by a supernatural source. Science does address such concepts as eternity and morality.

 

The value of religion doesn't require the belief in the supernatural.  It simply involves the ability to read and to think.  For example, I've learned a good deal from studying Hindu "theology" without having to believe in the literal existence of Vishnu or Shiva.

 

The fact that religion exists separately from science and that it has consistently evolved throughout human cultures worldwide should be enough evidence for you that it has unique value.  The fact that human societies were explicitly religious long before they were explicitly scientific should put the two disciplines into perspective.  Religion deals with concepts and values that supersede/precede the realm of science.  Science does not adequately deal with eternity; I've already explained that the Big Bang theory only purports to explain life on this side of the event horizon.  Before that science is blind.  Science may rationalize morality, but as I've also already explained, it is an essentially superficial treatment.  How we understand morality is not through our rational minds.

 

 I don't know what you mean by "totality" or "mutuality."

 

That's not surprising.

 

 

Educators should know how the scientific method works. Your comments throughout this thread reflect an alarming lack of understanding for one who is responsible for education.

 

Your understanding of my understanding is what's lacking.  The scientific method can only indirectly observe the Big Bang.  It happened well before humans and human science existed.  You cannot reproduce the event.  You cannot test the thing itself.  There's a reason they only call it a theory.

 

I'll also point out that ad hominem arguments are an illogical and unscientific way to conduct oneself.  #irony #fail

 

 

 

It is easy for some people to claim that Intuition can be a useful tool, when that some person happens to be Einstein, but does intuition come anywhere close to science in consistence and reliability?

 

Science is indeed useful, like many tools are; but it has not been "spectacularly consistent" - science changes its mind about things all the time.  Intuition is so reliable that it was selected for long before science and wired into who we intrinsically are.  There's no real contest between them.

 

No, all of physics does not rely on intuition (and neither does Einstein say so).

 

Yes, actually, that's what he said; "The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically."  Intuition is the foundation; everything else follows.

 

And what are these other perspectives with which to understand the world. How many significant findings have these other perspectives added to our understanding of the world? I would sure be interested to know.

 

Experience itself is a great teacher; "For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them" -Aristotle.  There are also moral and emotional perspectives, as well as philosophical, etc.

 

Scientific progress is fuelled by the relentless nature of human curiosity, spirit of adventure, yearning for knowledge and willingness to persevere against impossible odds. I agree that humility is important for a scientist, but IMO so is hubris ;). I think it would be presumptuous on my part to think that my lack of understanding and imagination translates to a limit on science.

 

But it literally is right now.  Right now science cannot see beyond an event horizon and it never has been able to.  For you to presume it will some day is an act of faith.  Nothing wrong with it, but that's what it is.

 

You are confusing “moral behavior†such as empathy & altruism with “moralityâ€.

 

No, moral behavior stems from morality that is fundamental to human nature.

 

It would be impossible to argue which came first – moral behavior or other aspects of intelligence such as the capacity to think. In all probability all aspects of intelligence evolved side by side.

 

It's not impossible to argue which came first.  Science can see where certain aspects of our conscious processes reside in the brain.  Science has also determined which parts of our brain evolved before other parts.  The moral/emotional parts of our brain are far older than the seat of science; they call it the "neo-cortex" for a reason.

 

Human Morality - a system of social and cultural laws - on the other hand is as much a human construct as the scientific method. You have claimed in several posts that morality follows some universal physical laws. Yet we find that morality varies with culture. Morality evolves over time.

 

Nonsense.  If morality is a human/social construct, where does human society come from?  Society is a biological/physical construct, subject to the same universal laws as everything else - no exceptions.  The most fundamental moral principles are remarkably consistent across cultures throughout history.  That said, environments change somewhat with time and place, just like organisms do.  It's a lot warmer and generally sunnier in summer than it is in winter; it's warmer in Hawaii than Siberia.  Some secondary patterned variation is how the system is determined to function.

 

I think you are misunderstanding De Waal. De Waal is not claiming that there is an external source for morality, but rather his research shows morality evolved because of brain biology.

 

I never claimed it was "external".  "Brain biology" is precisely the point - human morality, according to de Waal - is something that is "programmed" in us.  It comes from parts of our brain that are subconscious/unconscious - meaning it fundamentally supersedes/precedes science.

 

And this is exactly where Sam Harris comes in, because he believes that we can arrive at these "universal standards of morality" through rational investigation.

 

Well, he's plainly wrong.  The thing speaks for itself.  Evolution has selected human morality to be seated in the unconscious/subconscious parts of our mind, not the self-conscious part.  Science can observe glimpses of that; it can rationalize certain aspects of human morality, categorize it systematically, etc., but that is all essentially after the fact.

 

[Jen in NY]

LOL... I am not sure appealing to the credibility of a fictional paleontologist from a sitcom is the way to go here..... :)

 

I think when considering theory vs fact it's helpful to think about where I fit in the discussion. I am not an evolutionary biologist, therefore I am satisfied to accept the generalized and simplified-enough-for-me-to-comprehend opinion of many (many!) scientists studying the topic deeply as 'fact'. There's no way I would be able to read/research/design my own experiments about it *all*. But if I were to enter into the actual scientific conversation (which would have to be at a very advanced level after intense study of the evidence gathered so far) I might attempt to enter the discussion at the theoretical level. But as it stands.... as a trumpet playing homeschooling mom and not a scientist.... I can't dismiss out of hand mountains of scientific evidence because I don't study these things deeply.

 

As PP's have said... that thread linked just above is an awesome read about evolution. I think it's the most thoughtful thread I've ever read here.

 

[In2why]

No, you can't change that because you weren't on the jury.  The opinions of the jury decided his freedom; meaning, opinions still decided the fact, even if it wasn't your opinion in this case.

 

 

I think what you are saying is that guilt or innocence is a fact, that opinion determined?  

[lea1]

 Do you understand the theory of evolution?

 

Yes, do you?

[eternalsummer]

I think what you are saying is that guilt or innocence is a fact, that opinion determined?  

 

In this (legal) context, yes; and the legal context has consequences for facts in the real world (whether somebody is physically free or in jail, for example).

[lea1]

Here is a quote from the live science web site:

 

Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.

Mutations

The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called "mutations."

Mutations can be caused by chemical or radiation damage or errors in DNA replication. Mutations can even be deliberately induced in order to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism.  If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population.

In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones.

 

 

Preserving and adding up the RARE INSTANCES of mutations.  From what we see everyday, the vast majority of mutations do not cause beneficial changes.

[flyingiguana]

Preserving and adding up the RARE INSTANCES of mutations.  From what we see everyday, the vast majority of mutations do not cause beneficial changes.

This isn't true.

 

There are mutations all the time. Most aren't terribly noticeable. However, their accumulation in the genome gives natural selection something to work with IF that particular mutation turns out to be useful in a particular environment.

 

You are thinking of gross mutations that reduce viability in a current environment. These are not generally the mutations that lead to evolution.

 

The fact that there are a huge number of mutations all around us can be seen in that fact that we aren't all the same. Each eye color difference, each height difference, etc can be the result of a difference in some gene somewhere. When they aren't major changes, they're called polymorphisms in the population. A lot of them aren't inconsistent with survival and reproduction BUT SOME CAN BE SELECTED FOR OR AGAINST IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. With enough selection, these may become the norm in the population.

 

Speciation may tend to occur in small populations, so a bit of selection can cause a large change in gene frequencies. Or, just the random selection of genes in a very small group may lead to very different frequencies.

 

The appeal to hopeful monsters is kind of an old argument. If creationists and ID'ers are still using that, they've kind of missed the boat.

[flyingiguana]

I suspect the reason microevolution, but not macroevolution, tends to be accepted is because people are expecting they have to see evidence of speciation right now, with their very own eyes. It doesn't generally happen all that often or all that fast. So you're not going to see it in your lifetime. So saying "we" never see it is a bad argument.

 

It's pretty unlikely we're going to see a fruit fly evolve into a dog in our lifetime. For a number of different reasons. But those sorts of jumps are what creationists/IDer's seem to want.

 

Even punctuated equilibrium (which I have problems with -- another story), doesn't appear to result in huge jumps like that.

 

If it did, we wouldn't even know the 2 species were related in the fossil record.

[elegantlion]

Here it is:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/

 

For anybody interested in understanding evolution, I also recommend Why Evolution is True and Your Inner Fish.

 

Thank you. 

 

And it's about time for some Douglas Adams..."In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." 

[songsparrow]

 The scientific method can only indirectly observe the Big Bang.  It happened well before humans and human science existed.  You cannot reproduce the event.  You cannot test the thing itself.  There's a reason they only call it a theory.

 

It is unnecessary to observe or test the event itself in order to come to a detailed understanding of it.  Scientists and mathematicians develop extensive, detailed models which are then tested and compared to directly observable evidence.  A model can enumerate a variety of pieces of evidence which should or should not be observable if the model is correct, and a variety of pieces of evidence which should or should not be observable if the model is incorrect.  Scientists then go looking for those pieces of evidence.  The Big Bang theory is supported by a wide range of observable evidence, including pieces of evidence that the model predicted could be observed if and when scientists had the proper tools to detect it and such evidence later was discovered as predicted - very powerful confirmation of the model.  As such, it is accepted as the prevailing model.  The evidence also disproved alternative models, such as the Steady State theory.

 

ETA:  And it's not called a theory because it's not directly observable or because it's uncertain - quite the opposite, in fact.  In science something is not designated a "theory" until it is so well established that it's unlikely that any new evidence can be found to significantly alter it (although further evidence can deepen our understanding).   I'll quote the National Academy of Sciences:  "In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

 

 

 

Right now science cannot see beyond an event horizon and it never has been able to.

 

This is not accurate.  Science can and does make accurate descriptions and models of many, many things that are beyond direct observation (see., e.g., much of quantum mechanics & astrophysics).  Just because something is not directly observable does not mean it is beyond scientific understanding.

[Wheres Toto]

I'm having so much trouble keeping my mouth shut. Sigh.  I think I will have a TimTam too.  What is your favourite?  I like the mocha ones.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Then please don't fight it anymore.  You always have such wonderful information to add to these discussions.

 

And what's a TimTam?

[eternalsummer]

 

It is unnecessary to observe or test the event itself in order to come to a detailed understanding of it.  Scientists and mathematicians develop extensive, detailed models which are then tested and compared to directly observable evidence.  A model can enumerate a variety of pieces of evidence which should or should not be observable if the model is correct, and a variety of pieces of evidence which should or should not be observable if the model is incorrect.  Scientists then go looking for those pieces of evidence.  The Big Bang theory is supported by a wide range of observable evidence, including pieces of evidence that the model predicted could be observed if and when scientists had the proper tools to detect it and such evidence later was discovered as predicted - very powerful confirmation of the model.  As such, it is accepted as the prevailing model.  The evidence also disproved alternative models, such as the Steady State theory.

 

Models are "confirmed" all the time that are later disproven and discarded.  Theoretical science, by its own admission, is always incomplete.

 

 

This is not accurate.  Science can and does make accurate descriptions and models of many, many things that are beyond direct observation (see., e.g., much of quantum mechanics & astrophysics).  Just because something is not directly observable does not mean it is beyond scientific understanding.

 

I specifically referred to an "event horizon".  Scientists can speculate just like philosophers can speculate, but if science cannot ever see beyond an event horizon, how would you ever know whether your models for what's there are accurate?  You wouldn't.

[songsparrow]

 

I specifically referred to an "event horizon".  Scientists can speculate just like philosophers can speculate, but if science cannot ever see beyond an event horizon, how would you ever know whether your models for what's there are accurate?  You wouldn't.

 

 

I was interpreting your use of the term "event horizon" in your posts to mean a point beyond which an object or event is not directly observable.  If that is incorrect, please define for me what you consider to be an event horizon.

 

You've mentioned the event horizon of a black hole, and you've said that you consider the moment of the Big Bang to be an event horizon.  Are these the only ones or are there any other specific examples? 

 

ETA;

 

Models are "confirmed" all the time that are later disproven and discarded.  Theoretical science, by its own admission, is always incomplete.

 

Yes, but once they rise to the level of a scientific theory there is an accumulation of such a body of evidence in support of the model that it is highly unlikely that evidence will be discovered that will disprove the model.  

[Erin]

For one example, the effect of death and decay on perception and self-awareness. 

 

How about something within the realm of mortal, conscious thinking and lifespan?   ;)

(Since your point was about what people can or can't think...)

 

 

I'm suggesting that to hold religious beliefs is to believe science is wrong in some aspect, whether it's toe or just a vague, amorphous belief that "God is love." It is to impose a religious explanation in lieu of a scientific one somewhere down the line.

 

 

Arguing what happens after death is pretty challenging and I'm entirely too lazy to attempt it.  lol    

[Erin]

Deleted, because upon reflection I think it was too tangential to this thread.

 

The vast majority of the thread is a tangent!  lol  If it's too far out there, someone will suggest a new, separate thread.  

You made excellent points. 

Don't allow yourself to be bullied here, whether in reality or supposition.  

[Free]

Science is indeed useful, like many tools are; but it has not been "spectacularly consistent" - science changes its mind about things all the time.  Intuition is so reliable that it was selected for long before science and wired into who we intrinsically are.  There's no real contest between them.

 

Yes, actually, that's what he said; "The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically."  Intuition is the foundation; everything else follows.

 

It's not impossible to argue which came first.  Science can see where certain aspects of our conscious processes reside in the brain.  Science has also determined which parts of our brain evolved before other parts.  The moral/emotional parts of our brain are far older than the seat of science; they call it the "neo-cortex" for a reason.

 

 

Nonsense.  If morality is a human/social construct, where does human society come from?  Society is a biological/physical construct, subject to the same universal laws as everything else - no exceptions.  The most fundamental moral principles are remarkably consistent across cultures throughout history.  That said, environments change somewhat with time and place, just like organisms do.  It's a lot warmer and generally sunnier in summer than it is in winter; it's warmer in Hawaii than Siberia.  Some secondary patterned variation is how the system is determined to function.

 

I never claimed it was "external".  "Brain biology" is precisely the point - human morality, according to de Waal - is something that is "programmed" in us.  It comes from parts of our brain that are subconscious/unconscious - meaning it fundamentally supersedes/precedes science.

 

Well, he's plainly wrong.  The thing speaks for itself.  Evolution has selected human morality to be seated in the unconscious/subconscious parts of our mind, not the self-conscious part.  Science can observe glimpses of that; it can rationalize certain aspects of human morality, categorize it systematically, etc., but that is all essentially after the fact.

 

So, let me see if I can summarize the gist of your argument.

 

The emotional centers of the brain are much older than the rational centers of the brain. Since evolution selected for the emotions and moral instincts earlier than it selected for rationality, our emotions (love, intuition) and our moral instincts (empathy, altruism, fairness) are superior tools for understanding the world than our capacity to reason (logic, science).

 

If that is indeed your argument, then I suppose it would be futile for me ask what objective evidence do you base that on. It would also be futile to point out that humans with their capacity to reason have been far more successful at constructing knowledge than any other animal. Sadie said earlier, we need our (rational) brains to understand our brains....

 

It seems on the other hand that your intuition tells you that intuition is better for learning about everything.

 

As Barb said:

Well I'm done. Nothing more to see here, folks.

[eternalsummer]

I was interpreting your use of the term "event horizon" in your posts to mean a point beyond which an object or event is not directly observable.  If that is incorrect, please define for me what you consider to be an event horizon.

 

You've mentioned the event horizon of a black hole, and you've said that you consider the moment of the Big Bang to be an event horizon.  Are these the only ones or are there any other specific examples? 

 

ETA;

 

 

Yes, but once they rise to the level of a scientific theory there is an accumulation of such a body of evidence in support of the model that it is highly unlikely that evidence will be discovered that will disprove the model.  

 

 

The wikipedia definition is pretty good; "An event horizon is, in general relativity, a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer."

 

Beyond an event horizon no "information" is retained; it can't be scientifically observed directly or indirectly.  Here's a definition that is consistent with how I'm referring to the Big Bang;

 

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/glossary.html

 

Scientific theories come and go.  You yourself just mentioned that the Steady State Theory was recently disproven.  Some theories that are "disproven" are later reaccepted when the picture is clarified further; a prime example is Einstein's concept of a cosmological constant.

 

Science is good for a lot of things, but it's not our foundation.

[Free]

Yes.

 

That is great. Then what do you mean by saying that we should expect to see half cats and half dogs if evolution were true? Or that there are no transitional fossils?

 

[eternalsummer]

So, let me see if I can summarize the gist of your argument.

 

The emotional centers of the brain are much older than the rational centers of the brain. Since evolution selected for the emotions and moral instincts earlier than it selected for rationality, our emotions (love, intuition) and our moral instincts (empathy, altruism, fairness) are superior tools for understanding the world than our capacity to reason (logic, science).

 

If that is indeed your argument, then I suppose it would be futile for me ask what objective evidence do you base that on. It would also be futile to point out that humans with their capacity to reason have been far more successful at constructing knowledge than any other animal. Sadie said earlier, we need our (rational) brains to understand our brains....

 

It seems on the other hand that your intuition tells you that intuition is better for learning about everything.

 

As Barb said:

 

Do you consider the human brain to be objective evidence?  Because the form and evolution of the human brain supports my position.  I think a more accurate word than "superior" is "primary".  Consider that when humans interact physically, the majority of communication is non-verbal.  What is verbal is not just what you say but how you say it.  In other words, how you exist with other people is primarily determined by parts of your brain that you're not even (self-consciously) thinking about.

 

Humans are exceptional animals; our rational brain is really good at constructing things.  We construct houses with tools too; but the house is not the point - it's what's inside.

[flyingiguana]

Yes, do you?

Actually, from some of the things you have posted, I would have to guess that you don't have an understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

Perhaps you think you do because you have been reading too many ID sites, but as I've pointed out before, they seem to purposely be misrepresenting what evolution actually is.

 

If you want to argue this with biologists (or anyone else with a decent understanding), I suggest you actually educated yourself on it. Until then, you don't have much to stand on.

 

Also, scientists do tend to speak colloquially, just as everyone else does. They do tend to use the word "fact" when they mean the body of evidence is so convincing that it would take a pretty major piece of evidence (probably a huge body of evidence) to prove the thing wrong. It's short hand. Don't try to make a mountain out of it.

[Free]

Do you consider the human brain to be objective evidence?  Because the form and evolution of the human brain supports my position.

 

The human brain is objective evidence for the human brain, nothing more. You still need to demonstrate evidence for your claim that the sequence of brain evolution shows the primacy of intuition over reason as a tool for understanding.

[flyingiguana]

Regardless of what scientists state or know, evolution is taught as fact in schools, museums and tons of books and those who doubt it are ridiculed and compared to flat-earthers.  Most people don't search out answers for themselves.  They believe what others in authority tell them.

 

The sun is something we can see and test in the here and now.  The elemental composition of the sun or any star for that matter is determined from emission and absorption spectra.   You can break up sunlight into it's various wavelengths and you will see gaps in that spectrum. Each element (like hydrogen, helium, etc.) causes specific gaps in the spectrum. 

 

Very different from evolution, which we do not see happening before our eyes nor has it been reproduced.  The cat kind of animals have cats.  The dog kind of animals have dogs and people have people.  You don't see any half dog half cat animals running around.  You don't see any half human half animals running around and no transitional fossils have been found.

 

As for the Bible, if investigated, it is a very difficult book to doubt.  It was written as many books over a 1500 year span by more than 40 authors (many of them eye witnesses), including a prince, a fisherman, a shepherd, an army general, a king's food taster, a prime minister, a doctor, a king, a tax collector and many more.  Parts of it were written in the wilderness, in a dungeon, on a hillside, in prison, while traveling, on an island, on three continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), and yet the facts of the Bible all agree and it all tells the same story. 

 

It was passed down through the generations without mistakes for over 2000 years.  There are almost 25,000 ancient copies of the New Testament alone.  There are far more old copies of the Bible than of any other ancient book.  There are only 643 early copies of Homer's Iliad and only 10 old copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.  And these old pieces/copies of the Bible are really old, including pieces of the book of John that are only 50 years older than John's very first copy.  There are copies of the whole New Testament that are only 200 years old.  The oldest copies of the Iliad are 400 years older than their first writing and the oldest copies of the Gallic Wars are more than 700 years older than their first writing.

I can't look at the sun directly, nor do my eyes do the sort of chemical analyses you are mentioning. Therefore, I have to depend on indirect evidence for your claims.

 

Do your eyes work differently than mine? (Perhaps that is evolution at work).

 

There is current evidence for evolution -- the fossil record and DNA evidence. There may be differences of interpretation of that evidence, but you can't say it's not there. And at least I can say I've seen a fossil and held one in my hands. I can't say the same thing for your sun example.

 

The various versions of the Bible have a lot of differences. They can't all be right -- therefore some must be mistakes. Were they only introduced in the past couple years?

 

I conclude that you not only don't understand evolution, you also don't understand Biblical scholarship.

[flyingiguana]

Deleted, because upon reflection I think it was too tangential to this thread.

I thought the Tim Tams were too tangential. But that cat's already out of that bag.

[eternalsummer]

The human brain is objective evidence for the human brain, nothing more. You still need to demonstrate evidence for your claim that the sequence of brain evolution shows the primacy of intuition over reason as a tool for understanding.

 

The human brain is evidence for how we developed and how we exist.  The sequence goes to show which evolved later.  What comes first is primary, by definition.

 

How intuition functions along with our self-consciousness I've already demonstrated.  We communicate how we understand, and human communication is primarily non-verbal (unconscious/subconscious).

 

For example, love is how we "understand" those closest to us (eg. our kids).  Love is not something that derives from our rational brain.  It is the product of instinct, emotion, etc. - all of which is subconsciously/unconsciously determined.  We can think about love but reflecting on something rationally is secondary to how it functions in us.  Other animals love too, but they don't do science.

[flyingiguana]

http://glebe-harris.wikispaces.com/file/view/Far_Side_evolution.jpg/184755675/400x532/Far_Side_evolution.jpg

 

(This appears to be evidence that I still don't know how to add a picture to a post.)

[songsparrow]

Right now science cannot see beyond an event horizon and it never has been able to.

 

Ah, but I am glad that it does not necessarily follow that we never will.

 

The wikipedia definition is pretty good; "An event horizon is, in general relativity, a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer."

 

Beyond an event horizon no "information" is retained; it can't be scientifically observed directly or indirectly.  Here's a definition that is consistent with how I'm referring to the Big Bang;

 

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/glossary.htm

 

OK, so you are saying that scientists cannot presently "see" into black holes or into the time before the Big Bang because the information beyond the event horizon of the black hole or beyond the moment of the Big Bang is not retained in any evidence in our universe that is directly or indirectly observable.  That information is simply gone and now irretrievably lost to us (at least as far as we know in the present day - I assume you do not dispute that this leaves open the possibility that scientists could identify such evidence and figure how to observe it in the future).  Actually, that is not an established understanding about black holes, at least - you might be interested to read about the black hole information paradox.  

 

ETA:  And to bring this back around to the original discussion: I am glad that there are loads of both direct and indirect evidence available for study regarding the theory of evolution.

[Wheres Toto]

The human brain is evidence for how we developed and how we exist.  The sequence goes to show which evolved later.  What comes first is primary, by definition.

 

 

 

What comes first is primary when the word primary is used to mean first - sure.  But you seem to be using primary to mean superior or most important, and that's not always true.  

[songsparrow]

I thought the Tim Tams were too tangential. But that cat's already out of that bag.

 

Cupcakes or Tim Tams are always relevant, are they not?   ;)

[flyingiguana]

And for all those who were wondering, here is a scholarly article (complete with graphs) on the evolution of neoteny in Mickey Mouse:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftodd.jackman.villanova.edu%2Fhumanevol%2Fhomagetomickey.pdf&ei=E0KTU4byMsTvoATIq4LYAw&usg=AFQjCNFfr_W80dvaz8zW3mwckcLuYeKhLg&bvm=bv.68445247,d.cGU

 

If we're going to go all tangential, let's go all the way.

[eternalsummer]

Ah, but I am glad that it does not necessarily follow that we never will.

 

OK, so you are saying that scientists cannot presently "see" into black holes or into the time before the Big Bang because the information beyond the event horizon of the black hole or beyond the moment of the Big Bang is not retained in any evidence in our universe that is directly or indirectly observable.  That information is simply gone and now irretrievably lost to us (at least as far as we know in the present day - I assume you do not dispute that this leaves open the possibility that scientists could identify such evidence and figure how to observe it in the future).  But that is not an established understanding about black holes, at least - you might be interested to read about the black hole information paradox.  

 

The paradox is quite interesting.  Stephen Hawking recently wrote that "there are no black holes"

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

 

I think the black hole is rather a property of science itself; meaning it's a point beyond which the known laws of physics no longer make any sense.  There are lots of things like that.  We spend a good portion of our lives literally asleep.  That is, our rational mind turns off, but our brain is still on. :)

 

What comes first is primary when the word primary is used to mean first - sure.  But you seem to be using primary to mean superior or most important, and that's not always true.  

 

I'm using primary in multiple contexts; the fact that they coincide (are consistent with one another) is appropriate enough.

[naturemom]

The paradox is quite interesting.  Stephen Hawking recently wrote that "there are no black holes"

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

 

I think the black hole is rather a property of science itself; meaning it's a point beyond which the known laws of physics no longer make any sense.  There are lots of things like that.  We spend a good portion of our lives literally asleep.  That is, our rational mind turns off, but our brain is still on. :)

 

 

I'm using primary in multiple contexts; the fact that they coincide (are consistent with one another) is appropriate enough.

 

Misleading, out of context. Please do your research. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/