board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Back to the dark ages

Post Reply   Page 5 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 722 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:44 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
[edit: sorry that the following is unresponsive to the last page of posts. It takes me too long to compose these things and you guys type too fast}

Lewis Thomas has a great quote that I used to have in a little frame on my desk:

"A 'fact' is simply the point at which investigation has ceased."

I don't like to use the word 'fact' in conjunction with the word 'science.' We do not assemble facts. We assemble observations.

Observations can be mistaken, hence the importance of reliability measures and replication studies.

Observations can be biased. Observations can be irrelevant to the question at hand.

It is difficult to explain to the lay person the hesitancy with which scientific explanations are advanced. "Facts" and "certainty" are not really part of our vocabulary.

Sidonzo: I agree with hal. I don't think either Intellligent Design or the Theory of Evolution (where it concerns the origin of life) can be taught as science. Micro-evolution IS science. It is something that is observed right now and can be tested right now, but no scientist has ever seen macro-evolution (evolution from one kind of animal to another) happen because it takes millions of years to happen.

As I stated above, it does not always take millions of years to happen. Speciation means that the organism changes in such a way that it can no longer produce fertile offspring by breeding with its ancestral genotype. This definition does not change with the length of time involved. The distinction that you make between macro and micro evolution is not a distinction that would be made by an evolutionary biologist.

Onizuka: Ice Age comes. Who survives? The really clever, the really furry, and the really big.

You've touched on a really good point, Onizuka, which is that "well-adapted" means well-adapted to a specific environment. There is no such thing as fitness in general. There is only fitness for certain conditions. We have no idea what human traits will prove most valuable during the next Ice Age. There is no way to predict what kind of changes might visit our species tomorrow.

Hal: I CAN'T bury an animal for ten thousand years and see what the bones look like compared to what will exist in ten thousand years, or compare it to what existed a ten thousand years ago. It's just not possible.

OK, let me give you the three methods Darwin proposed as acceptable for evaluating events in the different past:

1. observe small events happening now, and extrapolate the effect of these events if they happened over eons. For example, the role of earthworms and ants in creating topsoil.

2. observe current events that appear to be different stages of the same process. For example, the formation of coral reefs

3. look for anomalies that reveal historical descent. These are often found in the reproductive organs of plants and animals - small differences result in new species because they physically inhibit interbreeding. For example, in the Hawaiian islands there are 27 different species of grasshopper that differ only in the minutae of the genitalia.

Interpretation of the past events has to rest upon something that is observable in the present.

Evolution from nothing is a perfectly valid guess for the origin of mankind ...

First of all, no one says that humans evolved from nothing. What does that even mean?

Second, scientists don't just "guess." I don't know why the choice is always between these two things: certainty, or a guess. An hypothesis is neither of these things. It's a proposition that can be tested in a particular way.

And I'm sorry if conversations about evolution so often devolve (no pun intended) into assignations of character to one side or the other. I think one can ask quite seriously how likely it is that the spiritual life of humans is a product of physical evolution. I don't know the answer to the question, and luckily neither my discipline nor my religion require me to ask it.

But I think that non-scientists have a rather naive view of what is required of scientists to be legitimate within their fields. It's not like working in a grocery store, you know. And it's rather insulting to have our work referred to as "a guess" considering that it takes decades of higher education to be able to do this kind of work. Scientists spend more years in school than doctors or lawyers do, though doctors are catching up to us because so much of what they do these days requires scientific training.

I just finished ... well, finished for the moment ... a model I've been working on for ten years. Ten years! - to answer one stupid question, and it's not even an important question. Well, I thought it was important, but it's not going to win me the Nobel Prize or change the whole field of economics. By the time my career is finished, I'll have answered two questions. Maybe. If I get to keep working for another ten years.

Ten years ago I was guessing that this model could be built. Now that I feel ready to put this out for publication, I'm no longer guessing. So it would be very irritating to walk into a City Council meeting and be confronted by a grocery clerk who'd read one book about economics and be told that in his opinion my guess is all wrong. Likely I would hand him his ass on a platter, as SF said in another thread.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:48 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
yovargas wrote:
vison wrote:
In every single "debate" about Evolution, those who will not accept its validity bring in the same tired arguments. I have yet to encounter one objector who is not, at bottom and eventually revealed to be, objecting on religious grounds.
And what am I, chopped liver?

:D

:hug:

:Wooper:
:hug: back at ya, yovargas.

No, you're not chopped liver.

You're just wrong. :D

Maybe you are the exception that proves the rule?

btw: here's another :hug:.

We never talk to each other any more. That sux.

How ARE you?

See ya in the Turf.

:hug:


Top
Profile Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:52 pm
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
Uh I just looked at this thread. Hmmm... I dont know exactly what to say. I do think there seems be a misunderstanding. At no point have I ever ever, ever seen The theory of Evolution presented as an explanation for the begining of life or the explanation as to why life exists. Not ever. So please before making decisions on when to accept or not accept a theory make sure you understand what the theory is presenting. I will say there are scientists who are trying to work on (figure out) the origin aspect but I think it is an early stages as a field of science (anybody who knows anything help me out!!!). That is not what Darwin was talking about.

I don't want to get too deep in the discussion, mainly because there are certain posts I think I should stay away from. Basically Jnyusa summed up most of high school and a little after that when it comes to the theory of evolution. C_G also has made some really really fabulous points. They explain things much better then I ever hope I could. So for those who are unsure about science please read carefully what they are saying. (They know their stuff!!!!!) If there are words you are unclear about (like if I didn't do biology 'genotype' would have me stumped right now), please ask!!!

I will say to Hal, most of the students in the biology courses I have taken are quite religious. I have only met one person who was of the mind that science should replace religion because it is 'fact', and well it was high school and most people rolled their eyes when when he started talking like that . ;) So maybe that mindset has to do more with where you went to school then it being a prevailing attitude among scientists (biologists in this case?).

I will say there was a fabulous lecture I attended on the theory of sexual dimorphism (Basically how we got male and female). It was actually quite funny and I still remember aspects of that lecture and it was 4 years ago!!! Although I think that is more in the uh, 'simpler life froms' issue so I won't bring it up again.

Trying to stay away from the microevolution comment. *Backs away
slowly*

EDIT: I just saw th Jny's post and Visons. I missed those. Jny you rock my socks when it comes to explaining this!!!!! :love:

Last edited by Wilma on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:55 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Quote:
But it's like cerebral crack.
Thanks for the needed laugh, Ax.

And I'd be honored to be considered even half the man you are. :)


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:18 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:19 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Sidonzo wrote:
I agree with hal. I don't think either Intellligent Design or the Theory of Evolution (where it concerns the origin of life) can be taught as science. Micro-evolution IS science. It is something that is observed right now and can be tested right now, but no scientist has ever seen macro-evolution (evolution from one kind of animal to another) happen because it takes millions of years to happen.
Scientists do not make the micro-evolution macro-evolution distinction. Both are simply evolution, and neither is separate from the other, but some do think they are separate. For those who think they are separate, the relevant question is "how many little changes add up to a big change?" However, speciation, which is macro-evolution, has been observed.
Sidonzo wrote:
do agree that some of the comments from the pro-evolution posters are harsh and unnessesary. Can't we debate without personal attacks? So what if a person believes God created the world and won't back down from that belief. None of the posters who think that evolution is the explanation for life are going to back down either, and that is fine. I still think we can have a polite, but lively debate and remain friends.
I don't see attacks on anyone's belief in God, especially since most who accept the theory as the best explanation are also theists. What is attacked is the presentation of science as equivalent to religion.
halplm wrote:
I'm simply arguing that as much as science can be used to study the past, a study of the past cannot be a scientific theory, because it eliminates all but the observing and hypothesizing part of the scientific method.
Labratory experiments are only one form of data collection, otherwise astronomy would no longer be a science, because I know of no labratories that have quasars in them. Nor does they historical aspect eliminate all but observing and hypothesizing, for it includes comparing the theory to the new data - the test. Yes, historical evolution (which is scientific and not a separate theory) is tested by the data.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:22 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
I was thinking about what someone said about 26 different species of grasshopper, that they are nonetheless all grasshoppers. What is the terminology for two of something that aren't so closely related, like a fish and a human being? Are we also talking there about two different species? It seems to me that there is some kind of qualitative difference between the differences, :roll: that is, the difference between two different species of grasshopper is different than the difference between a fish and a human being.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:32 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin,

Yes, there are levels of classification.

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

The grasshoppers are different species but all the same genus. People and fish differ at the level of class - we're mammals and fish are fish.

We are the only species in our genus, and people and chimps differ at the level of family, but we share order with all other primates.

Jn

edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure that we differ at the level of family. got to look it up. Be back

Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Wilma
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:35 pm
Takoyaki is love
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
 
That gets into classification I think (I barely remember). I think it gets into the 33 different phyla that Jny mentioned. I think it's called Taxonomy. (I don't remember much accept it that was a lot of stuff to remember). Usually clasification of groups of species based on different (uh physical?) characteristics. I think that is also where the scientific name for a species comes from (ex: Homo sapiens)

Also, the very important point that Jyn made about species is that they are uh reproductively isolated from each other. If you had one individual of each species of grasshopper and put then in a room they would not be able to breed together. At least not succesfully.

*Waits to be amazed by the awesome Jny once again*

Also, thanks Cerin for making an effort to try and understand this. (*Shudders at the thought of Taxonomy*)

Edit: Well I simulposted. Thanks Jny. :) That was exactly what I was thinking of. (Man, I totally forgot those terms)

Last edited by Wilma on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

_________________

Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:36 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
:hugs: vison again cuz it's fun.

:D

Written a long, long time ago by a poster called Lone_Ranger in the Manwe thread:
Quote:
What is Science, and is Evolution a Legitimate Scientific Theory?
Without going into all the gory details, working scientists are more or less in universal agreement that any legitimate scientific theory must satisfy three criteria:
1. the theory must be, in principle, falsifiable – that is, it must be possible to prove the theory wrong
2. the theory must be testable by observation and experimentation
3. the theory must make predictions which can be evaluated

So, how does evolutionary theory hold up as a scientific theory? ...
Statement: All known life on earth is ultimately related to one single-celled lifeform that was around approximately a gajillion years ago.

Is that statement falsifiable?
Is that statement testable?
Does that statement logically lead to predictions?
Is that statement a valid scientific theory?


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:38 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
vison wrote:
We are likely a Cosmic Accident that could never be repeated, and yet here we are, posting on B77 and still some of us are willing to discard such a wonder.
I would say possibly a cosmic accident rather than likely. To paraphrase a movie of which I am very fond: The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anybody has ever imagined before. So if it's just us...it seems like an awful waste of space. That is, of course, only my opinion. And it doesn't make our existence any less of a miracle.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:45 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
With all the developments we've seen over the last ten years or so, this is the one that convinces you we're headed back to the dark ages? ;)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:46 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Sorry, I was mistaken. We are in the same family as the great apes. And you're right, Wilma, this classification is a form of taxonomy. The word taxonomy refers to the general practice of dividing things into groups based on their similarities and differences. The concept was invented by Socrates as the first step in accumulating knowledge about the world of things.

Here's our taxonomy: :)

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Vertibrata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primate
Family: Pongidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens sapiens

(excuse me, I believe I spelled us wrong in an earlier post)

the second sapiens is a subspecies classification.

Yov: Statement: All known life on earth is ultimately related to one single-celled lifeform that was around approximately a gajillion years ago.

Is that statement falsifiable?
Is that statement testable?
Does that statement logically lead to predictions?
Is that statement a valid scientific theory?


Yes it is falsifiable and has been falsified. Only 32 of the 33 animal phylum seem to have a possible common ancestor.

Yes it is testable through DNA analysis and has been tested.

Does the statement lead to predictions - yes, it might, depending on what you are trying to predict. In the prediction of courses of disease, for example, it is useful statement

Is it a valid scientific theory: well, to the extent that it has been disproven, no it is not. But if you exclude the one phylum of worms that are marching out of step, then it might be a valid theory ... I prefer 'usable' myself ... theories can be invalidated but not validated.

Jn

eta:

Meril: So if it's just us...it seems like an awful waste of space.

That's a great example of something that scientists spend time on but which is not a scientific theory. We do busy ourselves looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life forms, but there is no "Theory of Aliens" because so far there is no observable evidence and nothing upon which to build hypotheses. There's just hope (in some quarters) and speculation.

Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:51 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
halplm wrote:
All the politics and evolution, and abortion and all of that, in the end, doesn't matter. What does matter is friendships, love, and good chocolate ;).
:hug:

:love:

One for the Hall of Fame.

I also wanted to make clear to Cerin I didn't leave this discussion because you guys aren't worth arguing with. I left because I'm simply too tired to enjoy it right now. I'll Be Back—in a few months anyway.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:51 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Last I heard, humans were in the family hominidae. Though I think they'd be perfectly justified in moving us into pongidae.
Quote:
Only 32 of the 33 animal phylum seem to have a possible common ancestor.
Really? Which is supposed to be the odd man out?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:55 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Dave L_F -

You may well be right. My book says that pongidae includes humans, but it also notes that there have been a lot of recent changes in the classification of primates. The order used to be subdivided into three groups and now it's subdivided into eight. So we might have been placed more recently in a family of our own.

Whose left out ... they're primitive worms. I have to look up the specific phylum.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:55 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
That is an impressive post, Jn.

As usual. :)

I think what you have explained very well is the perspective of the scientist in all this.

There is another perspective that I think is the most crucial, one that I am unsure what to call. I cannot say if it is the perspective of anyone here, but I think it is the perspective that in large part drives the fight against Evolution in the scientific arena. Call it ... perspective X.

Perspective X begins with a conclusion drawn from a personal Faith that is contrary to a conclusion drawn by many others from Science. There is a conflict here that is solved by the person choosing whether to believe the conclusion drawn by Faith or the conclusion drawn by Science. There is no real sense in which the conclusions can be set against each other and judged superior or inferior. The person must simply choose what he or she believes.

So, perspective X begins with choosing Faith over Science, and there is no problem here. The problem comes when things are taken a step further. Here we get to the heart of perspective X. Rather than be content to say "I choose to believe the conclusion given by Faith, and I reject the conclusion given by Science," those with perspective X want to eliminate all conclusions contrary to their Faith. This is when Faith becomes ugly. This is a great tragedy, in my opinion. Faith should be something beautiful and uplifting. Faith is an inner thing, informing one's own beliefs, freely chosen and not forced from the outside. Too many people treat it as a weapon, a sword, to prune away the improper beliefs of others, to force them to align with their own Faith.

No scientist can use Science to refute a conclusion drawn by Faith. One who does so would rightly be labelled a scoundrel. I must make the same statement in the reverse. A person with perspective X, who comes into a scientific debate illiterate with respect to the basic rules of scientific inquiry and who attempts to cut down a Scientific Theory is a scoundrel. True Faith does not need to assert itself over everything else. Perspective X indeed perverts Faith, by saying it's really not good enough to stand on its own, that Science must also be eliminated.

The problem is not with choosing a species of Faith over Science ... the problem is the arrogance of trying to eliminate Science for everyone else and replace it with that Faith pretending to be Science.


Top
Profile Quote
Frelga
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 10:59 pm
A green apple painted red
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Out on the banks
 
Faramond: :clap:..... :yes:..... :clap:

_________________

GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 11:01 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Whose left out ... they're primitive worms. I have to look up the specific phylum.
That would surprise me. If it were true, they'd need to be moved into a separate kingdom too. If any lifeform on Earth were found to be of a different origin than the others, I'd expect it to be something really bizarre like the Archaeobacteria (and even that would be a surprise since they are still built of cells, still use the same code and the same molecules, etc.).

I don't know much about the history of taxonomy, but it's quite possible that humans used to be in the same family as the great apes but were given their own later after so many extinct human-like organisms were discovered. I still think that the two chimpanzee species at the very least belong in the same family with us, whether by moving us to theirs or by moving them to ours. But it's all just semantics in the end anyway.

Last edited by Dave_LF on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 11:06 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I'm curious, too, Jn. I thought you might mean the Archaea, which look just like bacteria, except that their cell membranes have a structure so radically different from that of Bacteria proper that it appears they are much more distantly related to Bacteria than Bacteria are to us.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 13 4 5 6 722 »
Jump to: