Do our resident conservatives and republicans truly believe women are biologically suited to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[Aeson]

If the process is understood it ought to be possible to reverse the process.

That is a ridiculous requirement. We can't reverse the process of a star aging, but you still accept we understand the process.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is a ridiculous requirement. We can't reverse the process of a star aging, but you still accept we understand the process.

We can understand the cardinality. A becomes F. F becomes G. G becomes K. Same isn't true of evolution. How would one determine which direction evolution was occurring? It's not even clear to me that evolution rules out loops, where say A becomes B which later becomes A. How would we distinguish between a loop A -> B -> A and say:

A split ->A + B -> A as B goes extinct?

Or even:

A split -> A + B -> A reforms from A+B.

[Aeson]

In short, the ground work hasn't even been done yet for evolution to be compared. Would anyone here suggest that our current understanding of biodiversity is even close to complete?

Our understanding of anything is incomplete. That doesn't change that we do know some things well enough to make consistent predictions. Such as when we change a specific gene in a plant, we get a specific resistance to a chemical or pest ... thus allowing us to more efficiently produce food.

We can infer from statistical probabilities, precisely how long a star would stay at each age by the proportion of start actually at that age. Can we do this with evolution? Do we even understand the process sufficiently well to establish a direction of evolution?

We understand dating of organic compounds and strata well enough to determine that fossils are from the past, not the future ...

We see differentiation. Darwin's hypothesis is that the two were the exact same process.

No. We see genetic mutations as well. New gene sequences that aren't just a recombination of the parents' genes. These happen in laboratories at our will. They can happen in nature due to radiation. They can also happen due to viruses and even chemical processes.

We know that changes in genetics leads to changes in the organism. It's obvious that changing enough genes would result in creating a new species (or changing one species to another).

Not to mention that "species" tends to be an inexact classification with rather arbitrary allowances for differentiation within a species before it gets reclassified as another species. (This happens all the time as our observations about specific organisms leads to understanding and classifying them better. There is no absolute "species".)

He provides examples of sheep breeding, etc, but what he fails to realize is that in thousands of years of breeding sheep, we have not changed the species.

"Species" is rather arbitrary delineation based on traits. There is often a lot of debate about what species an organism belongs to, and new species arise all the time even from previously known organisms based on new information about their traits and how some scientists decide it deserves to be classified.

Also, it's not surprising that we'd breed sheep to express the traits they were initially domesticated for, rather than trying to change them to something dramatically different and likely economically less valuable. With enough funding Monsanto could probably change sheep into frogs, and we can already make them hairless or with human ears on their butts. But there's really no point in doing so.

How do we establish a 'rate of change of mutation', based upon theoretical models, and how do we establish how environment can increase or reduce this number? We don't know. All we know is 'creatures adapt to their surroundings and become fitter to their more surroundings. Then we proceed to 'Just So Stories' as to how the camel got it's hump.

Just because we can't predict random events doesn't mean those random events don't occur. We've observed these events happening, even in the relatively short time-frame we've been looking. Pretending they don't happen is just absurd.

To label x a mutation and y is not a mutation requires an understanding as to what has changed and what has not - stuff that we are just getting into now. It also requires the understanding of a template, ie, "this is the non-mutation form of this species". This is as crucial as it was identifying atomic mass to the periodic table.

There is no template. Treating "species" as if it was a fundamental element is just absurd. All "species" are in flux (both in terms of classification, and in genetic makeup), and the lines that separate species are often rather arbitrary. Genetically there can be just as much differentiation within a species as there is between species.

I am skeptical about the transmutation of one species into another as opposed to the differentiation within one species observed by Darwin.

We can map out the genetic makeup of two similar species. By changing the genes of one to be more similar to the other, we change the resulting organism to be closer to the other species as well.

It's rather obvious that changing enough of the genes will lead to a change in the species classification of the organism. This holds true whether it was done in a laboratory or out in nature.

What if there's not just one speed on the dial but two? Two forces, and not simply one?

Then once we have data that shows the other process actually exists the theory would expand to include it.

Yet the theory itself predates Genetics.

So did livestock breeding. That didn't stop people from changing their domesticated animals to serve specific purposes over time. People made metal tools thousands of years before they knew exactly how heating the metal and combining it with other types of metal actually worked on an atomic level. But those metal tools still worked.

Metallurgy predates chemistry. Chemistry predated knowledge of the atom. We're still learning things about sub-atomic particles and forces. This is how knowledge progresses. Just because we aren't omnipotent yet doesn't mean we can't apply the knowledge we do have.

Therefore it stands to reason that some of the presuppositions of the theory created without the knowledge and understanding of the existence of genes are in fact incorrect.

Of course. But the theory of evolution itself evolves as new information is added. So far the explanations offered by evolution are superior to the competing theories.

What is obvious is that evolution of some sort does happen. That we can force it to happen. How to fit all the organisms on earth into a "family tree" is something that will take a long, long time and may not ever be complete due to lack of data. But it is obvious that some organisms are closely related, and we have observed organisms differentiating enough that we've decided to reclassify them. (Again, not an important step. If pigs in the future grew wings and started flying, they'd be flying whether we said they were a new species or not.)

Again, genetic changes!= evolution.

Genetic changes are how evolution functions. You're just operating from an unsupported viewpoint that there's some sort of absolute "species" delineation for each and ever organism that exists. The truth is that species are defined by rather arbitrary groupings of traits. It's helpful for classifying organisms, but doesn't mean there's something "extra" different about two organisms classified as separate species. Their differences may be very small in some cases, whereas differences in two organisms classified as the same species can be rather large in comparison.

What is important is we can see how changing genetic makeup changes expressed traits in organisms. It doesn't matter whether we decide that change in traits warrants classification as a new species or not ... the traits have changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Our understanding of anything is incomplete.

Our understanding of stellar evolution is significantly better. The underlying framework is all there and has been there for around 100 years.

That doesn't change that we do know some things well enough to make consistent predictions. Such as when we change a specific gene in a plant, we get a specific resistance to a chemical or pest ... thus allowing us to more efficiently produce food.

Would you say that animal husbandry is evolution? No. It's not. This is no different from animal husbandry - selection of desired traits. The only difference is that you modify the genetic code precisely rather than selective breeding.

We understand dating of organic compounds and strata well enough to determine that fossils are from the past, not the future ...

We understand stellar evolution well enough to be able to predict where a star should be in it's life cycle. Heck, with modest understanding of that chart, I can give workable estimates of many other physical characteristics of the star, knowing just it's mass and it's spectral class. No further calculations necessary.

]No. We see genetic mutations as well.

Just because two processes involve mutations, doesn't mean that it follows that one is dependent on the other one. Mutation is a process. It doesn't necessary establish a causative relationship between two different processes invoking mutations. One mutation can arise from transcription errors. Another from radiation. Would you go back and say that because both cause mutations that the radiation is linked to the transcription errors?

Same here. By definition we know that any changes in the genetic structure are generally caused by mutations. It's not enough to say, oh, mutation = evolution. If that were so, we could simply irradiate everyone and claim that this was evolution at work. And you'd be correct at that - it would be evolution. That's the problem. The term is not specific enough to cover a peculiar process.

Differentiation is by definition defined as changes within a species. We see this in animal husbandry and it goes back long, long before the present synthesis. Evolution is somethine else entirely - it is a transformative process, not a restructuring process. You are changing what a thing is in evolution, whereas with differentiation, you are preserving the identity of the thing, while changing physical characteristics. Differentiation spreads the seeds - evolution grows them in the first place.

New gene sequences that aren't just a recombination of the parents' genes. These happen in laboratories at our will. They can happen in nature due to radiation. They can also happen due to viruses and even chemical processes.

Again, differentiation. You aren't changing what the virus is, merely changing the accidents to the substance. Just because it's purple or red doesn't change what it is. You're not transforming the virus into say an animal. Or even bacteria.

We know that changes in genetics leads to changes in the organism.

But these changes do not change the organism into another different organism. You won't get a cat instead of a dog.

It's obvious that changing enough genes would result in creating a new species (or changing one species to another).

Look at nuclear synthesis. We know how different elements can be created from other elements. However, we know by definition what an element is. Do we know - by definition - what a species is by it's genetic code? No. There's no 'genome based' definition of the species.

This is why as you're claiming, any and all changes equate with evolution. That's like saying in Chemistry, any changes in atomic weight result in a new element. We know this is not true, because of the existance of isotopes.

Differentiation = chemical isotopes.
Evolution = nuclear synthesis - the transformation of one element into another different element. It's the same process that can produce either result - but the resultant chemistry is very different. It's important to understand the difference between an isotope and an element, just as it is important to understand the difference between variations within a species and variation across species.

Not to mention that "species" tends to be an inexact classification with rather arbitrary allowances

And that's the whole problem. It's like trying to do Chemistry without understanding what an element is. Sure, you can do it, but goodness gracious - isn't it so much easier when you understand how elements work? Biology is trying to work with 'just so' tales mixed in with genetic analysis. Those 'just so' tales are going to have to go along with the remnents of Darwinian evolution - the same way the Aether vanished utterly when Einstein showed it was unnecessary.

Just because something is very, very, difficult to observe doesn't mean that the folks advancing the theory get a pass by saying, "of course it must be right". Umm, no, that's not how science works at all. The ultimate question is how you would go about proving transmutation. And you can't even get out of the dock without a clear empirical definition of what constitutes a species.

for differentiation within a species before it gets reclassified as another species. (This happens all the time as our observations about specific organisms leads to understanding and classifying them better. There is no absolute "species".)

There is no absolute 'element'. See how silly that sounds? This isn't science! This is just bunk. You're playing word games and telling just-so stories to each other.

There is often a lot of debate about what species an organism belongs to, and new species arise all the time even from previously known organisms based on new information about their traits and how some scientists decide it deserves to be classified.

I'm saying that classifying a species based on appearance is backwards and archaic. It provides no actually useful information. It's an accident that does not pertain to the substance of the animal. When we can find the genome of all of these animals then we have the actual substance. There's no need for a classification based on appearances. Classification based on genetic sequences is a far, far better way of doing these things.

Also, it's not surprising that we'd breed sheep to express the traits they were initially domesticated for, rather than trying to change them to something dramatically different and likely economically less valuable. With enough funding Monsanto could probably change sheep into frogs, and we can already make them hairless or with human ears on their butts. But there's really no point in doing so.

So let's see them try. You say it can be done. I say it cannot. Science is about proving me wrong by trying to get it done. I would say that if it were possible they would be trying to do it. That they aren't doing it isn't evidence that it is impossible, but it is evidence that it's not about the money - it's just not technically feasible.

Just because we can't predict random events doesn't mean those random events don't occur.

The reason we are telling just-so stories is because we lack empirical observational evidence for these events.

We've observed these events happening

We've observed how Camels got their hump?

Pretending they don't happen is just absurd.

Making up fairy tales to explain how things happened when you lacke evidence for it isn't the purview of science. It's ok, in real science to say, "we don't know why it happened".

Am I suggesting that Camels never grew humps? No. What I am saying is that we don't know how this happened and claiming that we do know how this happened when we have never witnessed it is wrong. It would be better to stop and say, whoa. We don't really know how it went down. Maybe we should try to find out how it did happen!

There is no template.

Then evolution doesn't exist.

Treating "species" as if it was a fundamental element is just absurd.

Is it?

All "species" are in flux

So are elements.

(both in terms of classification, and in genetic makeup), and the lines that separate species are often rather arbitrary.

Then evolution is a lie since it doesn't actually change anything.

Genetically there can be just as much differentiation within a species as there is between species.

Is this the best point you have? Since there is no empirical definition of what counts as a species, all the changes can be attributed solely to differentiation. In order to prove that one species changed into another species, you must have an empirical definition as to what constitutes both species.

This is exactly the old problem with the Aether. You've got an entire system built up on this one presupposition that species can change. Just like the Aether had to exist to explain stellar aberration. Of course the reality was much weirder (and frankly, much more cooler), with Special Relativity which did away with all that nonsense.

The same thing is going to happen to biology, and it starts with an empirical definition of what constitutes a species. All the information is right there. Working from substances and ignoring accidents like appearances is probably going to crush the total number of 'species' way, way down. Which is why the cladists won't do it. Who wants random bug 17 to lose it's special status as bugus apolytonis, a whole *new* species.

We can map out the genetic makeup of two similar species.

You just stated that there was no actual definition as to what makes those two species 'separate'. So this is in fact, impossible.

It's rather obvious that changing enough of the genes will lead to a change in the species classification of the organism.

So why don't we try that, changing a dog into a cat.

This holds true whether it was done in a laboratory or out in nature.

This is an article of faith that's never been done.

Then once we have data that shows the other process actually exists the theory would expand to include it.

All the data that's been shown can be adequately explained as differentiation within a species.

So did livestock breeding. That didn't stop people from changing their domesticated animals to serve specific purposes over time. People made metal tools thousands of years before they knew exactly how heating the metal and combining it with other types of metal actually worked on an atomic level. But those metal tools still worked.

Alchemists believed fervently in the transmutation of the elements. They were correct that this was possible, they were just 100 percent wrong as to how it was achieved. And so, they wasted a ton of time investigating a blind lead. It's the same with evolution today, except the sad part is that good science is getting choked out by orthodoxy.

Metallurgy predates chemistry. Chemistry predated knowledge of the atom. We're still learning things about sub-atomic particles and forces. This is how knowledge progresses. Just because we aren't omnipotent yet doesn't mean we can't apply the knowledge we do have.

Of course. But the theory of evolution itself evolves as new information is added.

But it hasn't. Your central assertion that 'change enough genes and you can change the species', is exactly Darwin's argument. He argues that differentiation 'of course!' leads to the transformation of dogs into cats and vice versa given sufficient enough time. But he never explains how.

It's like this.

1. Magic elves capture goats.
2. Breed goats with one another
3.......
4. Goats transform into cows
5. Profit!

But he never explains step 3. He just assumes that one process automatically leads to the other, without any other evidence that this is in actuality the case.

He didn't even know anything about genes. Do you really feel comfortable with the basis of his reasoning here given that he lacked the evidence in order to explain why this worked this way?

So far the explanations offered by evolution are superior to the competing theories.

It's not surperior to this one. Every change that's been documented can be explained as simple differentiation - the same process observed by Darwin. You don't need Evolution.

What is obvious is that evolution of some sort does happen.

I agree. What is not clear is transmutation of one species into another.

How to fit all the organisms on earth into a "family tree" is something that will take a long, long time and may not ever be complete due to lack of data.

It's a myth like Yggdrasil the world tree.

But it is obvious that some organisms are closely related

Well, sure. They all have carbon in them. Oh wait. You were saying that some of them look like other animals. Well of course. But that doesn't mean that they actually are related to one another.

Genetic changes are how evolution functions. You're just operating from an unsupported viewpoint that there's some sort of absolute "species" delineation

I'm arguing that it's impossible to establish evolution as an empirical science without an absolute delineation of the species. You don't even have the framework right to be able to prepare a table to classify families. It's like trying to discover elements when you don't even know how they all fit together or where the holes exist. Biology is in it's infancy, and it would be a lot further along if they discarded the archaic notions that dictate how they classify animals.

Start from there. Then some real scientific progress can be made and biology will move to becoming an empirical science.

[Aeson]

Treating "species" as if it were a fundamental element is not going to work for obvious reasons. Most organisms aren't homogeneous and interchangeable the way atoms are. (Some very simple organism may be.) Classifications of organisms are necessarily going to involve much more room for variation within the classification, unless the classification happens to be each organism in it's own classification.

Species is a rather wide classification. Often there isn't a bright line between one species and another and so the line becomes arbitrary.

You don't like this because it sinks your whole line of argument. Your entire argument relies upon there being something magical about species classifications, and so any other changes in traits that don't result in a new species is not evolution in your estimation. You're absurd.

[Aeson]

So why don't we try that, changing a dog into a cat.

Probably because it would cost billions of dollars (maybe trillions?) and kittens are usually available for free.

[Elok]

Because it's ****ing random mutations in a too-complex and variable environment to predict! You'd have to predict the nature of and frequency of random mutations and how they affect the reproductive capabilities of organisms in the chaos of nature.

In comparison, a star follows relatively simple chemical laws.

IIUC, mutations actually play a fairly small and limited role compared to simple natural variation within populations. I would say the real limiting factor on our understanding is the nature of future environmental stresses. Given the number and complexity of said stresses--and the way they interact with one another, over millions of years--asking us "what will humans evolve into next?" is a lot like asking "what will the Dow close at on December 4, 2048?" By comparison, a star's environment is static.

Also, there's no guarantee that humans will evolve dramatically at any point in the foreseeable future (unless you're asking a transhumanist). We're very skilled, intrinsically adaptable generalists. Lots of well-adapted species stay the same for very, very long periods of time. E.g. sharks, crocodiles...and moss. The moss growing around the trees in my yard is essentially unchanged from the stuff dimetrodons crawled around on.

[Kidlicious]

What if I believe the Church is a woman?

Are you the *****? Or are you the *******?

One would think that someone who really was God's gift to women would be able to stay married, if, as you said, she wasn't a *****.

You don't seem to remember that I keep telling you that I divorced her. I have no need to be married like you do. The truly said thing about you is your greatest desire in life, to be a beta male, goes unfulfilled. Why?

[molly bloom]

Paul says I am supposed to be willing to die for my wife just like Christ died for his Church.

May I suggest a hurried match with an unpicky homicidal mail order bride ?

[molly bloom]

What if I believe the Church is a woman?

It'd just be something else that wouldn't sleep with you.

[giblets]

Given that his ministry was the Gentiles, you tell me. It appears that he was remarkably successful at bringing people into the Church.

Fine, I will tell you. No baby-making took place.

[kentonio]

I'm arguing that it's impossible to establish evolution as an empirical science without an absolute delineation of the species.

Which makes you both wrong and stupid. Grats.

You don't even have the framework right to be able to prepare a table to classify families. It's like trying to discover elements when you don't even know how they all fit together or where the holes exist. Biology is in it's infancy, and it would be a lot further along if they discarded the archaic notions that dictate how they classify animals.

I'm sure the worlds biologists will all be hugely grateful to you for telling them they've all been wrong all these years. Especially given your long and proud experience working in the field of biology.

Start from there. Then some real scientific progress can be made and biology will move to becoming an empirical science.

The fact they let you anywhere near children's education is absolutely terrifying, you moron.

[kentonio]

Also, there's no guarantee that humans will evolve dramatically at any point in the foreseeable future (unless you're asking a transhumanist). We're very skilled, intrinsically adaptable generalists. Lots of well-adapted species stay the same for very, very long periods of time. E.g. sharks, crocodiles...and moss. The moss growing around the trees in my yard is essentially unchanged from the stuff dimetrodons crawled around on.

Given the vast number of humans in a huge variety of environments and the biological complexity of our species, it would be absolutely incredible if we didn't evolve dramatically given enough time. It seems more likely though that the species will branch rather than just evolve in a single direction.

[giblets]

Given the vast number of humans in a huge variety of environments and the biological complexity of our species, it would be absolutely incredible if we didn't evolve dramatically given enough time. It seems more likely though that the species will branch rather than just evolve in a single direction.

The Americas where settled over 13,000 years ago and the isolated human population there didn't become a distinct species.

[N35t0r]

They did differentiate markedly from the population in Eurasia though, to the point they lacked the genes to survive/attenuate a lot of diseases common there.

Elok's point that our brains allow us to adapt to many situations without depending on genetic change is certainly valid. Plants and animal in the arctic have traits that evolved over millions of years to allow them to live there, but usually are detrimental to living in warmer areas. Humans adapted to living in the arctic in a much shorter timespan just by relying on their brains to come up with solutions to the same hardships.