Let's Even The Playing Field in This Hot Debate

reply to post by FearNoEvil

Science can’t draw a conclusion on the theory of evolution because evolution can't be reproduced.

False. Evolution does make predictions and they turn out to be correct. The existence of ancient species can be inferred and they have been found. The locations and times of suspected fossils have been correctly predicted.

Newly found fossils confirm Darwin's predictions

They might not, however, be aware that in 1871, Darwin published "The Descent Of Man," which applied the principles of his theory to the evolution of primates and Homo sapiens (man the wise). It was in this second great book that Darwin exhibited great prescience by predicting that Africa would be the most likely place on Earth for the appearance of primates leading to more advanced forms of development.

reply to post by stereologist


And the experiment was....?

reply to post by FearNoEvil


The experiment to do what?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by quisoa

....Your assumption is that there is a goal to make a web. Evolution does not have goals.

The fact that some spiders makes webs makes you wonder how they do it.

I said nothing about web spinning being a goal, nor do I wonder how they do it. Web spinning is a fact, and it is a fascinating process to watch. My question involves the origin of the process.

So your suggestion that these items appeared at once to make a spider a spider is not correct.

The development of the spinning process was either sequential or simultaneous. I discounted simultaneous mutation as an improbability. My question concerns the effects of random sequential mutation. I will try to re-word the question.

Can you agree that the hole in the spider's body had to appear before the silk gland? If there was no hole, a silk producing gland would rupture the body. A random mutation which caused a hole in the spider's body had to occur before a silk gland appeared.

So...since there is no goal, plan, or direction, there must have been other random mutations that occurred that had no correlation with any future feature of the spider's existence. That's simply a mathematical necessity of randomness.

If random mutation is a cause, then new features are an effect. Again, from a mathematical standpoint, there should have been at least as many non-useful mutations as there were useful mutations. Let's be generous and say that only 20% of the mutations were non-useful.

Does 20% of a spider's body serve no purpose?

...It was used to protect eggs and provide a safe retreat.

At some point, some spiders expanded the uses of silk to the process of trapping insects. A random mutation had to occur which gave the spider the ability to create a geometrically patterned structure, or if you prefer, a series of mutations which added increasing complexity of the structure over a number of years. (Am I correct in thinking that acquired knowledge is not inheritable?)

reply to post by quisoa


I wouldn't say it is a mathematical necessity. It certainly is plausible and likely.

Mutations do not necessarily mean that there is an effect. There is no mathematical necessity that mutations are of any type - useful, non-useful, or whatever. In effect the following question is moot. It doesn't even follow from the statements you made.

Does 20% of a spider's body serve no purpose?

Let's say that we get to the point where evolution allows for silk to be produced and extracted from a pore in the body. Maybe there is no pore. The silk may simply be produced in the skin. It could be drawn from the body through contact of the silk producing region on the surface to other objects.

So you are suggesting that the form of the web is described in the genetic makeup of spiders. Let's suppose it is. Your claim is that evolution leads to increasing complexity of the webs. Why do you make that claim? Darwinism states that the spiders that live to breed carry on their traits. Are you suggesting then that complex webs increase the chance for survival?

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by PieKeeper

 

Nice link. Try again.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by FearNoEvil]

A "missing link" may never be found, the conditions under which a fossil is created isn't common, and it's possible that the "missing link" species was never fossilized. Also, just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean that it does not exist. Although, it would be extremely hard to pinpoint what species is the exact splitting point, so even asking for one may be completely futile.

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
Science can’t draw a conclusion on the theory of evolution because evolution can't be reproduced.

You have no idea what Evolution is.

Evolution is the change in the gene pool of a population. It happens, it's happening right now. It's been proven to happen time and time again.

The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory. A Scientific Theory explains why and how an observable phenomena occurs. The Theory of Evolution can not exist if evolution does not exist. Evolution happens, therefore the Theory of Evolution can be constructed.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by PieKeeper


I know what evolution is. You use your smoke and mirrors explanation to avoid the obvious...

It's still just a THEORY that cannot be observed directly or reproduced in a controlled environment.

Nor can all the holes be plugged even by your best advocates...
Mr. Dawkins - baffled

reply to post by FearNoEvil


No... I just explained to you...

Evolution - A process.

The Theory of Evolution - An explanation of the process.

Evolution (the process) =/= The Theory of Evolution (the explanation)

It's like a box of cereal and it's ingredients. The ingredients tell you what's in the cereal, but the ingredients aren't the thing you eat (the cereal.)

[edit on 16-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by PieKeeper

 

I know what evolution is. You use your smoke and mirrors explanation to avoid the obvious...

It's still just a THEORY that cannot be observed directly or reproduced in a controlled environment.

Nor can all the holes be plugged even by your best advocates...
Mr. Dawkins - baffled

First off Richard Dawkins was not stumped that video was obviously edited to make him look bad. The reason he looks "baffled" is he is just realizing that he let crazy creationist in his home.

Here Richard Dawkins explains this hoax.
www.skeptics.com.au...

Not only do you have no idea what evolution is you have no idea what a scientific theory is. Do you believe in the "Theory of Gravity", what about "atomic theory "

For the simple people that seem to not understand the difference of scientific theory and theory used more often in everyday speech, I will try to explain it as short and simple as I can.

A scientific theory is based examination of the facts.
That is it there is no "Theory of Evolution" if we cannot see the facts. if Evolution had nothing proving it but Darwin saying "I have this idea of all living things evolving we would have the "Hypothesis of Evolution".

www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.actionbioscience.org...

All this pages take the time to explain how the Theory of Evolution is made up of facts, and how this is how science works.( as in how we human know everything we do today)

As for you bull# lie about never being observed..
You are just ignoring the evidence to suit your need. I could take the time to list a bunch of examples of evolution but you are just going to go off about macro/micro evolution because as Pie pointed out you have no idea what evolution is.

Observed Instances of Speciation
www.talkorigins.org...

More Observed Instances of Speciation
www.talkorigins.org...

Oh yeah then there is is.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just a theory ? Keep it up and you will no longer be welcome our science driven world that bring us all our knowledge in Physics, Biology, Genetics, Medicine, and Astronomy. Pretty much everything I listed there uses "Just Theories" .

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by quisoa

....There is no mathematical necessity that mutations are of any type - useful, non-useful, or whatever.

From Understanding Evolution, Berkeley:
____Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."____

Perhaps my choice of terms (useful or non-useful) was in error. From the quote above, I understand that mutations will be either beneficial (useful) or neutral/harmful (non-useful).

Does 20% of a spider's body serve no purpose?

Let me rephrase that illustration. Mutations may (or may not) result in a morphological change to an organism. Since mutations are not goal-oriented, the mutation may result in a blue lobster or a six-fingered human. A mutation does not have to be a trait that influences natural selection.

If you were to roll a die a thousand times, the result would be an even distribution of the six possibilities, not a bell curve. All six numbers have an equal chance of being rolled.

Likewise, a mutation on a spider has the chance of being either useful or non-useful. There should then be a number of features on a spider caused by random mutation which serve no purpose at all. What are those features?

...The silk may simply be produced in the skin.

Is that a fact or supposition? From what I read, silk comes from internal glands through spinnerets.

So you are suggesting that the form of the web is described in the genetic makeup of spiders. Let's suppose it is.

Are you implying that an organism can possess something that is not written in the genetic code? Where then does the ability to construct a web come from?

Your claim is that evolution leads to increasing complexity of the webs. Why do you make that claim?

Isn't an increase in complexity one of the effects described by the theory of evolution? One-celled organisms to multicellular organisms? From amoeba to man?

I did not express myself well. You expressed ratios to good, bad, or whatever. That's a prediction that I don't see any evidence for. Why should mutations tend to be good, or bad, or whatever? Of course, these are simple terms we use to express the notions of being advantageous, neutral, or deleterious to the survival or whatever of an organism.

One of the interesting issues is the notion of randomness. In a book P.A.P. Moran gave 3 definitions of random in an introductory problem. He ends up with 3 distinct answers to the problem. He points out that different notions of random leads to differnt results. It is important ot define what we mean by random.

What you have done here is to define a form of random which I have to say really speaks to your understanding of these issues. I do hope other appreciate your insight as well. Well said. What I do not know is what sort of randomness is involved in mutations. Do mutations occur with uniform probabilities as you suggest? My wild guess is no since few things do behave that way. Is it a good approximation? It might be. I do not know.

I was definitely making a supposition about placing the silk producing cells in the skin. Today silk is produced internally. But in the last 400 million years is that true?

Are you implying that an organism can possess something that is not written in the genetic code? Where then does the ability to construct a web come from?

I don't know enough about spiders to decide or know if web construction is "programmed" into spiders via genetics or if it is a learn behavior, or a mix of the two. Is the form of the web a function of the shape of the animal? Is the shape of the web a secondary effect of the genetics and directly coded into the genetics?

Isn't an increase in complexity one of the effects described by the theory of evolution? One-celled organisms to multicellular organisms? From amoeba to man?

Definitely not. There is nothing about complexity in Darwinian evolution. The goal is survival. If complexity leads to survival then it happens. If complexity leads to failure then it's a dead end. Did you know that early land animals had 5, 6, 7, and even 8 "fingers"? Some forms of complexity did not pan out and are gone.

reply to post by nophun


Sorry to bust your bubble. The link for speciation you provided is a very poor source. It mostly contains speciation observed in lab experiments and mostly in cross-breeding, that sounds like ID to me ?? what to you think ???

Few excerpts from your source ..

4.2 Cases Where the Biological Species Concept Does Not Apply
There is no unambiguous criterion for determining that a speciation event has occurred in those cases where the BSC does not apply. This is especially true for obligately asexual organisms. Usually phenetic (e.g. phenotypic and genetic) differences between populations are used to justify a claim of speciation. A few caveats are germane to this. It is not obvious how much change is necessary to claim that a population has speciated. In my humble opinion, the difference between the "new species" and its "ancestor" should be at least as great as the differences among recognized species in the group (i.e. genus, family) involved. The investigator should show that the change is persistent. Finally, many organisms have life cycles/life histories that involve alternative morphologies and/or an ability to adjust their phenotypes in response to short term changes in ecological conditions. The investigator should be sure to rule these things out before claiming that a phenetic change constitutes a speciation event.

and

5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

-to be continued....

reply to post by nophun


and some more about the attitude of the biologists regarding the matter. I think they thought "why bother, we have read about that in grad school, somebody would have verified that before putting it in our books" !!!!

3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations
The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.

Most of the reports, especially the recent reports, can be found in papers that describe experimental tests of hypotheses related to speciation. Usually these experiments focus on questions related to mechanisms of speciation. Examples of these questions include:

Does speciation precede or follow adaptation to local ecological conditions?
Is speciation a by-product of genetic divergence among populations or does it occur directly by natural selection through lower fitness of hybrids?
How quickly does speciation occur?
What roles do bottlenecks and genetic drift play in speciation?
Can speciation occur sympatrically (i.e. can two or more lineages diverge while they are intermingled in the same place) or must the populations be separated in space or time?
What roles do pleiotropy and genetic hitchhiking play in speciation?
It is important to note that a common theme running through these questions is that they all attempt to address the issue of how speciation occurs.