Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by aaglo
Inevitably this kind of height increase will affect on the genetics of humans - the bone and muscular structure will adapt to the "new height standards".

Hmmm - I am not even sure that this is true. I mean you would have to somehow kill off people who have the 'short' genes. I don't think being short actually places any survival difficulties in todays society.

I suppose you could argue that being short makes you less desirable to a partner, and therefore you get a less evolutionarily advantageous mate. Consequently your 'short' genes are always associted with other less desirable traits. This carries on down through your children and their children, each generation becoming less desirable, until eveutually they can't get laid at all!

But if that were true, then all men would have 14 inch penises by now

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Hmmm - I am not even sure that this is true. I mean you would have to somehow kill off people who have the 'short' genes. I don't think being short actually places any survival difficulties in todays society.

I think it is true. Because people grow taller, their proportions change. Thus bonestructure will have to change to work better with the new proportions. And as bones change, the moving muscles will have to comply. That is the way I see it.

I suppose you could argue that being short makes you less desirable to a partner, and therefore you get a less evolutionarily advantageous mate. Consequently your 'short' genes are always associted with other less desirable traits. This carries on down through your children and their children, each generation becoming less desirable, until eveutually they can't get laid at all!

But if that were true, then all men would have 14 inch penises by now

Are you a woman? I've heard that only women know if the size matters

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Scientists should not make subjective declarations. It is fair enough to personally believe one thing over another and from a scientific point of view it is also valid to study the questions which you think are most important first, thereby implicity making a decision about which scenario you believe to be most likely. But it is not good scientific practice to say 'this cannot be true because we have no evidence for it'.

On the contrary, this is exactly what happens in science. Scientists always make subjective judgements based on their education and experience. Experiments generate raw data, but scientists are needed to interpret this data.

In science, theories are used to explain existing observations. They don't exist in vaccum. A theory that has no evidence doesn't seem to exist.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by PatRussell

The barrier between microevolution and macroevolution is the addition of genetic information that would be required for this to be true. The magnitude of mutations that add info would need to be much greater than can be demonstrated or observed.

Then you have lost this argument. Mutations can and do increase the overall information content of the genome: there is no theoretical barrier to this, and there are many observed instances of it happening. And it happens at a rate that is sufficient to drive evolution.

I have seen variations of this "information argument" many times. Creationists like to play a "shell game" by employing multiple definitions of "information": the total size of the genome, the size excluding junk DNA, the size excluding repeated sections, and the number of individual traits encoded within. They also switch between the information content of an individual and that of the gene pool of the species. But to no avail: there is no escaping the clear and demonstrable fact that mutations can increase the information content.

Here is how it works:

A mutation causes duplication of part of a DNA sequence (or even the doubling-up of a whole chromosome). This increases the size of the genome, but doesn't add any new traits initially. However, subsequent point-mutations (changing individual "letters" of the code) can now accumulate in the duplicated section without knocking out anything vital (because there's a backup copy). These new traits will be operated on by natural selection, weeding them out if they're bad and propagating them if they are useful.

The result is a larger genome with new genes adding new traits: a clear, undeniable increase in information. And every stage in this process has been directly observed.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In science, theories are used to explain existing observations. They don't exist in vaccum. A theory that has no evidence doesn't seem to exist.

Is the same is true for mathematically derived theories. GR being the one that leaps to mind. It was a much used theory before any evidence (either to support or conflict with) it was found.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Heh - if the theory makes prediction which are proven to be wrong, then it is inapplicable to be used in that situation. You should not use it because you will get the wrong result. This is what I meant by 'throw away'. Obviously you don't burn Einsteins papers on GR just because it breaks down at the quantum level, but you shouldn't use it there either.

Not sure if that's true. For example if you look at Newtonian Mechanics, it's not really wrong but doesn't explain observations as good as relativity.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
'Predictive' does not just mean that something new should happen - it also means that you can make a new observation which tests the theory, but know before hand what the results should be if they agree with the theory, ie you predict the result.

If you used this to be part of the meaning of "prediction" then evolution excels at doing this. For example, evolution predicted that abuses of antibiotics would end in the rise of "superbugs," or strains of becteria with multi-resistance. This has in fact happened.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The fossil records show fairly good agreement with evolution but it is not so clear that it is by natural selection. It is also fairly clear that natural selection exists, but not so clear that it is the mechanism of evolution.

Not just fossil records, they are just part of a mountain of evidence. A lot of other things, such as anatomy (such as the appendix and tail bone in humans), genetics, embryoic development (the human embryo goes through a number of stages, each resembling fish, amphibians, etc.), paleontology, and so forth. When you have so much evidence from so many fields that all fit together, I would even say evolution is the best supported theory we have now.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Not exactly. Theories are still theories, even if they make no predictions - they are just useless theories, but that is not to say that they aren't true. Imagine, for example, a universe which had 'choatic pockets' - regions of space time, where the laws of nature would change randomly. You could make no predictive theory about the laws of nature in these pockets other than that the laws change constantly. This is a theory with no predictive power, but in the universe discussed it would still be true.

I have no idea what are you trying to get at. This is the part of my message to which you were responding:

Not really. Creationism is not a scientific theory per se is because it cannot be falstified, i.e., shown to be wrong. A scientific theory must be able to be replaced simply because these theories are models of nature.

I don't think you quite get my point. My point is a person cannot falsify creationism, i.e., show it to be wrong. A person can show evolution to be wrong. A person can show relativity to be wrong. Creationism cannot be shown to be wrong because its very basis is not nature, it's something utterly unknown - and unknowable - to us.

[Jack the Bodiless]

A note on mutation rates:

By measuring the rate of mutation in modern humans, and the extent of genetic difference between humans and chimanzees, geneticists estimate that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. This was a surprise for paleontologists, who had been working with an estimate of 8 million years or thereabouts.

The rate of observed evolutionary change is more than adequate to support evolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Is the same is true for mathematically derived theories. GR being the one that leaps to mind. It was a much used theory before any evidence (either to support or conflict with) it was found.

IIRC, GR was devised because Einstein was unsatisfied that certain obervations, such as the wobbling in Mercury's orbit, that can't be explained by SR.

Sure, the observation of gravational lenes was a direct evidence for GR, but a theory that explains existing observations better (such as SR vs Newtonian Mechanics) can be construed as evidence for that theory.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Scientists always make subjective judgements based on their education and experience. Experiments generate raw data, but scientists are needed to interpret this data.

This does not contradict what I was saying. I fact, it supports it. Scientists must, of course, interpret data and use their judgement about what this means. But this is only on a scientific level, ie. what should I test with experiments?

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and see no evidence in science to believe that he doesn't exist. There are plenty of other scientists who believe he does not exist, and see plenty of evidence for his non-existence. The problem is that we cannot think of an experiment to conclusively rule out either possibility, so we should keep an open mind.

Since we can't think of an experiment to perform, we don't do one - but you can sure as hell bet that we would do it if we could!

[Urban Ranger]

Is it just me, or has PatRussell really not responded to any of my messages?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
This does not contradict what I was saying. I fact, it supports it. Scientists must, of course, interpret data and use their judgement about what this means. But this is only on a scientific level, ie. what should I test with experiments?

Okay, at what level was your comment aimed?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and see no evidence in science to believe that he doesn't exist. There are plenty of other scientists who believe he does not exist, and see plenty of evidence for his non-existence. The problem is that we cannot think of an experiment to conclusively rule out either possibility, so we should keep an open mind.

It seems pretty clear to me that a supernatural entity that can change reality at will is mutually exclusive with science. As it has been pointed out before, what if the fossil records were planted? What if this world just came into existence 15 minutes ago just as it is now, with your memory and everything else created in situ? How can you do science with that as a possibility?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by PatRussell


I have looked at several of the links posted (including the transition FAQ) and still state, based on several key gaps in the fossil records, that you cannot prove species to species evolution. I do credit the site for it's honest regarding these gaps, but they are significant enough to reenforce my original point - macroevolution cannot be proved.

That is absolute horse****, you cannot prove anything you are saying. Those links are doing nothing for your opinion. You are arguing for a cause that died off many years ago. William Jennings Bryan argued to keep evolution out of the school system (in the US) and that failed because he obviously had nothing to contradict the facts shown by evolution. Species to species evolution is proven, and you have provided horse**** to disprove that.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not sure if that's true. For example if you look at Newtonian Mechanics, it's not really wrong but doesn't explain observations as good as relativity.

Newtonian mechanics will give wrong predictions of physics at high speeds. It is wrong for describing this, but is a reasonable approximation to reality for low speeds. Likewise GR will give wrong predictions for small distance effects. It is wrong for describing this, but is a reasonable approximation at large distances scales.

If you used this to be part of the meaning of "prediction" then evolution excels at doing this. For example, evolution predicted that abuses of antibiotics would end in the rise of "superbugs," or strains of becteria with multi-resistance. This has in fact happened.

This is evidence for microevolution - not the evolution of man.

I would even say evolution is the best supported theory we have now.

The best tested theory we have is Quantum ElectroDynamics. This is an interesting point though. There are certainly different standards in different branches of science as to what constitutes 'well supported'.

I don't think you quite get my point. My point is a person cannot falsify creationism, i.e., show it to be wrong. A person can show evolution to be wrong. A person can show relativity to be wrong. Creationism cannot be shown to be wrong because its very basis is not nature, it's something utterly unknown - and unknowable - to us.

I agree. Creationism isn't a nice theory from a scientific point of view (I certainly don't believe in it), because it is not predictive. But non-predictivity does not preclude something from being true. For example, look at the quantum mechanics. There are many interpretations of QM, two of which are The Copenhagen Interpretation and Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. There is no experiment we can do to prove of disprove either of them, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Also, although creation cannot be proven wrong - it could be proven right. God could descend with His Host of Angles tomorrow morning, and then we would all know for sure.

[Gibsie]

Okay, you've agreed that new genetic information can be added to the genome of an organism for positive benefits. It is up to you therefore to tell us just why it is not possible for new information to have been added to the genome for positive benefits to lead to the evolution of man.

If it can happen to bacteria, why not man? Is it that we are coded for by DNA and they do not have anything resembling the substance? Please tell us.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Gibsie
It is up to you therefore to tell us just why it is not possible for new information to have been added to the genome for positive benefits to lead to the evolution of man.

Was this directed at me? I have already said I believe evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have, so I am not sure...

But anyway, since we are having fun and the creationists are away for a bit, I will answer. The point is that creationists do not have to prove to you that evolution could not happen. They are not even saying that themselves - they are saying that it did not happen.

My mother is a crazy driver, but she has never had an accident. If she had one I shouldn't automatically assume it was her fault because I believe that her having an accident is inevitable.