Tenn. Senate OKs Bill To Allow Anti-Evolution Talk In Classrooms

[OrangeEmpire]

same level?

I thought the same

 

[RespectTradition]

Absolutely.



TennTradtion started the ball rolling on this. Your point of contention with evolution seems to be the predictive power of evolution as a theory and how individual evolutionary experiments maintain an adequate amount of control to maintain one independent variable.

Evolution can't be tested. At least, there has never been a single case I am aware of where any test has shown one species becoming another.

First, I will start with quality control of the experiment. It is fairly easy to have quality control with an evolution experiment on the micro level. I don't believe you would object to this. I guess the real point of contention would be with those experiments at the macro level. That is a farce because evolution happens so slowly at the macro level that you cannot possibly have a comprehensive experiment. All you can do is observe.

Star formation can't be tested on the macro level either, but we can test the relevant behaviors of particles in high energy situations, like in super-colliders.

Now, you can have what I call "observe and tinker". This is not quite experimental, because total evolution into a different species does not happen. We can only test certain aspects of the evolution theory, or as TennTradtion put it "components of the theory" (natural selection, genetic bottleneck, gene flow, etc). If you want an example of this "observe and tinker" on the macro level, look no further than the University of Tennessee. Dr. Riechert is the world's foremost authority on evolutionary behavior with respect to spiders. She has published extensively and flies out to desert (and all over the world) to conduct her experiments. Without going into detail, (it would mind-numbing and take forever) I can assure that extensive procedures are taken to insure the isolation of the independent variable. Of course, there is never a 100% chance of that happening, but then you could say that about any experiment of any kind.

All these types of experiments prove is that genes that produce a more survivable organism in any given environment tend to be propagated at a higher frequency. To my knowledge, they have never resulted in a different set of genes than ones that already existed prior to the experiment. In other words, they do not prove that genes change, they only prove natural selection.

Secondly, the predictive power of evolution has been shown many times. Every since Darwin, evolutionary biologist have stated that if a system (of any kind) is cut off from the whole, there will be certain evolutionary characteristics that will happen (some more than others depending on what kind of barrier is at hand). We have seen this over and over in various isolated islands, caves, man made structures like the Great Wall of China, or the disintegration of a limestone cave roof into an ecological treasure. There are many instances of this phenomena happening at various levels all over the world with predictive hypotheses being validated very time.

I have also read of many times where these same principles produce erroneous predictions. Consider the 'self-domestication' of the bonobos. Completely opposite of what was predicted.

Moreover, evolutionary biologist when trying to map out the history of evolution constantly have to make predictions of a common ancestor between a group of organisms. They know relatively what the characteristics were of older organism (being primitive if they have not found an order link already) and the characteristics of the newer descendants of that common ancestor. From those facts, they are able to make fairly accurate predictions of what the common ancestor looked like, bone structure, habits, etc. Then, bam! Some palaeontologist finds the bones of this common ancestor and validates their predictions. There are many cases of this happening. I think the most famous example would be that of "Lucy".

This is definitely something to think about. However, since there are no controls, then I am not sure how much to trust it. Observation and guesses are good. They are what lead us to make hypotheses. The do not, however, confirm them.

Furthermore, with the advent of DNA testing, we are able to map out evolution and common ancestry with absolute precision. There were mistakes made by evolutionary biologist due to incomplete fossil records. They had to make an educated guess about some common ancestors that proved to be wrong. However, those are the minor details. The DNA mapping has proved conclusive on the theory itself and the mechanisms on which it operates.

It can be proved that there are common genes. Until we see one species change into another, that is all that we can say with certainty.

I figured that your contention was with macro evolutionary techniques and not micro evolutionary techniques. Micro evolution happens every day in labs all over the world. I would hope that you can reconcile that our universe is governed by uniform natural laws which effect all levels of reality equally.

Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? This statement is most assuredly not true. At least so far as can be proven.

I hope this post helps elucidates your misgivings about the scientific criteria of macro evolution.

Not really. Don't misunderstand me. I believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. I guess I have biases against biology anyway. I studied ME, math and high-energy physics. Most people in my classes barely considered biology a science. The lack of precision, the lack of true modeling, the inability to reduce it to workable math, the incredible amount of subjectivity in interpretation. All these things are against it.

 

[KiffinKiller]

im with you there. hate bio and for some inexplicable reason, loved math and physics.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Evolution can't be tested. At least, there has never been a single case I am aware of where any test has shown one species becoming another.

On the macro level, no. On the micro level, yes.

Star formation can't be tested on the macro level either, but we can test the relevant behaviors of particles in high energy situations, like in super-colliders.

Right, the same is done in biology.

All these types of experiments prove is that genes that produce a more survivable organism in any given environment tend to be propagated at a higher frequency. To my knowledge, they have never resulted in a different set of genes than ones that already existed prior to the experiment. In other words, they do not prove that genes change, they only prove natural selection.

Very puzzling response. Natural selection causes gene change. Gene change is evolution.

This is definitely something to think about. However, since there are no controls, then I am not sure how much to trust it. Observation and guesses are good. They are what lead us to make hypotheses. The do not, however, confirm them.

Right. However, we have already admitted that humans are limited by time. A hypothesis with predictive powers or as Karl Popper would say a "falsifiable predictive" hypothesis is a coherent scientific theory.

It can be proved that there are common genes. Until we see one species change into another, that is all that we can say with certainty.

We do it everyday on the micro level in the laboratory.

Have you ever studied quantum mechanics? This statement is most assuredly not true. At least so far as can be proven.

I am very familiar with it. I indulge in theoretical physics as a hobby. Quantum mechanics is the only thing that is real in physics (or perhaps the universe). Einstein's relativity and special relatively is nothing more than an elaborate illusion. Much the same way that Newtonian mechanics were an illusion of our physical world before Einstein. That seems very foreign to us because many of our greatest technological achievements, putting a man on the moon, were a direct result of those theories.

Not really. Don't misunderstand me. I believe that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. I guess I have biases against biology anyway. I studied ME, math and high-energy physics. Most people in my classes barely considered biology a science. The lack of precision, the lack of true modeling, the inability to reduce it to workable math, the incredible amount of subjectivity in interpretation. All these things are against it.

That is common and understandable. I feel the same way many times. At heart, I am a physicist although I studied BCMB in college.

Everything is relative. Not all fields of sciences have the luxury of being as controlled, methodological, and backed solely by equations and mathematics like physics. However, as we have seen with the history of physics, even such a "fool-proof", "pinnacle" of science has been proved to be demonstratively false. Nature is more complex that we ever imagined. When there isn't a nice laboratory environment to carry out at science, we have no choice but to place value judgments on data collection and analysis. Thus making them inevitably subjective.

 

[rjd970]

Very puzzling response. Natural selection causes gene change. Gene change is evolution.

Not really. Genetic mutation happens randomly, the environment selects which mutations are beneficial to survival and which are not.

I would say natural selection drives genetic change, it doesn't cause it.

Sorry for the nitpick.

 

[lawgator1]

but they must state it is a theory and not proven and they do not.

they teach it like its a fact and if you disagree you are either lying or fooled.

You don't think that evolution is fact?

How would one go about ever proving to your satisfaction that it is fact?

 

[rjd970]

I thought the same

I read it as same level of scientific inquiry.

Which they aren't.

 

[rjd970]

The specifics of evolution is what is still in debate.

The overarching theory itself is all but fact. If evolution isn't happening, nature sure has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[emainvol]

You don't think that evolution is fact?

How would one go about ever proving to your satisfaction that it is fact?

I have always felt that NEOCON himself is objective proof that we evolved from monkeys... the missing link, if you will.

 

[emainvol]

The specifics of evolution is what is still in debate.

The overarching theory itself is all but fact. If evolution isn't happening, nature sure has a lot of explaining to do.

My high school science teacher, who is also Jesus, told me that you are a lying liar.

 

[KiffinKiller]

My high school science teacher, who is also Jesus, told me that you are a lying liar.

I knew he was hiding here somewhere. Sneak attack on its way.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I read it as same level of scientific inquiry.

Which they aren't.

So we agree?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Not really. Genetic mutation happens randomly, the environment selects which mutations are beneficial to survival and which are not.

I would say natural selection drives genetic change, it doesn't cause it.

Sorry for the nitpick.

You are completely correct. I was just trying to simplify it. Guess I simplified it too much

 

[rjd970]

To OE:

I suppose, if you consider theology or philosophy on the same level as biology.

same level?

I thought the same

I read it as same level of scientific inquiry.

Which they aren't.

So we agree?

I'm reading this little exchange as some perceived slight against philosophy and theology by you and VBH because it is not on the "same level" as biology...which it wasn't and I didn't perceive it that way. If that is the case, then no, we don't agree. Not sure what "thinking the same thing" means.

If it is not, apologies.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

To OE:











I'm reading this little exchange as some perceived slight against philosophy and theology by you and VBH because it is not on the "same level" as biology...which it wasn't and I didn't perceive it that way. If that is the case, then no, we don't agree. Not sure what "thinking the same thing" means.

If it is not, apologies.

No, im pretty sure we agree

 

[VOLatile]

No, im pretty sure we agree

I think we all do.

 

[RespectTradition]

Very puzzling response. Natural selection causes gene change. Gene change is evolution.

I am very familiar with it. I indulge in theoretical physics as a hobby. Quantum mechanics is the only thing that is real in physics (or perhaps the universe). Einstein's relativity and special relatively is nothing more than an elaborate illusion. Much the same way that Newtonian mechanics were an illusion of our physical world before Einstein. That seems very foreign to us because many of our greatest technological achievements, putting a man on the moon, were a direct result of those theories.

Not really. Genetic mutation happens randomly, the environment selects which mutations are beneficial to survival and which are not.

I would say natural selection drives genetic change, it doesn't cause it.

Sorry for the nitpick.

I mentioned Quantum Mechanics because, for example, gravity behaves different on macro and micro scales and you used micro examples and tried to extrapolate it to the macro and I was trying to give an example of how that can be fallacious.

Natural selection doesn't cause gene change. Mutations cause gene change. Natural selection just helps determine if those genes are propagated.

I have never seen anyone be able to predict what mutations will occur. We have seen, through divergent evolution, that virtually identical environments will product wildly different evolutionary responses. To me, that means we cannot predict any changes. The best we can say is 'changes will occur that will aid in survivability'. That is hardly a prediction worthy of being called science.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I mentioned Quantum Mechanics because, for example, gravity behaves different on macro and micro scales and you used micro examples and tried to extrapolate it to the macro and I was trying to give an example of how that can be fallacious.

Yes. But this is a problem with science itself. It is addressed many times in the philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, etc).

What seems factual through the history of science, is that at its most fundamental level, there is a uniform natural law (or higher level theory) which is applied to all (big or small) within a given field. This does not exclude lower level theories from approximating either macro or micro phenomena.

Natural selection doesn't cause gene change. Mutations cause gene change. Natural selection just helps determine if those genes are propagated.

As I told rjd, I tried to simplify it. I ended up oversimplifying it. My main point was that when the genetic message is altered in a significant percentage of a species from one generation to the next, that change is evolution. I am still oversimplifying it, but I don't feel the need to blow the thread up into a pissing contest in genetics.

I have never seen anyone be able to predict what mutations will occur. We have seen, through divergent evolution, that virtually identical environments will product wildly different evolutionary responses. To me, that means we cannot predict any changes. The best we can say is 'changes will occur that will aid in survivability'. That is hardly a prediction worthy of being called science.

I would have to disagree with it this in general. Yes, there are certainly times where we do indeed not have a clue which way evolution will happen. However, this is because life is so complex. Ecosystems are even more complex. There are often many different paths which can lead to a solution of overcoming an obstacle. As the old adage goes, "there are multiple ways to skin a cat". Evolution and genetics is no different. On the micro level, in a laboratory environment, we can control the conditions of evolution. We can limit it to one independent variable and we almost always know how the dependent variable will respond. The development of various vaccines, medicines, and helpful bacterium rely on this technique.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I think we all do.

I thought so

 

[wilrob75]

Evolution can't be tested.

Staph aureus disagrees.

 

[Gramps]

Haslam to make decision tomorrow if he will sign this bill.
He is saying he will probably sign it.
This bill passed the house and senate by a 3-1 margin.

 

[tvolsfan]

I don't see a lot of good coming from this bill.

 

[NEO]

I love the fact that the majority of this country can't even balance its check book but still feels frisky enough to tackle the great beyond.

Sleeping at a holiday inn must actually work.

 

[Danl]

Haslam to make decision tomorrow if he will sign this bill.
He is saying he will probably sign it.
This bill passed the house and senate by a 3-1 margin.

This is sad. Really, really sad.

 

[dduncan4163]

Korn - Evolution - YouTube