Re: Tuesday's elections

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While John Oliver Pondered, Weak and
Weary, Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Then the claim that life arose by accident and that all mutations came
>>>about by accident should not be in science classes. Be sure to get
>>>back to us when you have built a time machine and identified the first
>>>living organism and traced every mutation (including all extinct
>>>species) from that time to the present and demonstrated that all of
>>>those mutation was accidental
>
>> John? Ever seen an atom? Do you think they exist? Or do you believe
>>in atoms as a matter of faith?
>>
>>John P
>
>I did my PhD thesis in Experimental Particle Physics. I have seen the
>tracks left in a bubble chamber by charged particles. I have done the
>measurements of momentum and the calculations using relativity that
>convince me of the mass of those particles.
>
>I am familiar with the use of chemistry to isolate "pure" elements and
>the use of mass spectrometers to measure the mass of atoms in those
>purified elements.
>
>I am familiar with the use of the idea of atoms in statistical
>mechanics to explain the ideal gas law and the viscosity of gases.
>
>I am also aware of how quantum mechanics uses atoms to explain
>spectral lines, how physicists combine statistical mechanics, atoms
>and quantum mechanics to explain the properties of solids.
>
>I am aware that the concept of atoms is of use in every field of
>physic and that detailed theoretical calculations can be done which
>can be verified by experiment.
>
>Therefore, I believe in atoms. The concept works! Not just works as a
>matter of hand waving, but works as a matter of detailed fit between
>theoretical calculation and experiment.

So, I take it that your answer is, No, you've never seen an atom. Yet,
using all the science at your disposal, you still believe they exist.
Before the human mind devised such things as bubble chambers, mass
spectrometers, and statistical and quantum mechanics, atoms still
existed, but we couldn't prove it. Science eventually did (though I'll
bet there are still some religious nuts out there that deny the
existence of atoms. I could be wrong, but there are people who still
believe the world is flat.)

(And jebus, I'm debating a Physicist about physics! I'm just a lawyer.
Am I nuts?)

>
>Now, I am also familiar with how evolution ties together large parts
>of biology (where evolution is defined as there are mutations, natural
>selection operates on the mutated organism). Its useful and explains a
>great deal so I accept it.
>
>But I am not aware of any use being made of the concepts that life
>began by accident or that all mutations are accidental. They do not
>seem to be of significant use in biology.

Ok. Your last statement lumped the beginning of life with subsequent
mutations. here:

>>>Then the claim that life arose by accident and that all mutations came
>>>about by accident should not be in science classes.

We need to isolate these for further discussion, because I've only
been discussing ID compared to evolution, not Origins of Life. ID
makes no claim on how life arose, (except by implication) only how
species arose, so let's stick to the concept encompassed by that
debate. I took umbrage at the relevant part of the above statement
dealing with subsequent mutations. My (relatively unqualified)
understanding of the science of evolution is that there is ample
evidence to substantiate a common descent from the first single cell,
through present day life (and don't assume that man is the highest
form of life. We're just one of millions that evolved to this point.
We're still evolving. We may be relatively dominant, but others may
differ. The cockroaches for instance. Or my cat). It occurred at the
molecular level, something that even Darwin was unaware of at his
time. Evolution is a change in the gene pool in a population over
time. * This requires mutations, which we know occur at the present
time. We can see changes in the gene pool in ourselves, that did not
occur in other species. Vitamin C deficiency that is not in
chimpanzees, for instance, came about as a result of a gene mutation
after we evolved from the chimps. We know this because of recent
advances in mapping the human genome, and the genomes of our
ancestors. This was predicted by evolutionary scientists, and then
eventually found to be true.

My point is that science has the evidence to conclude that mutations
came about by a natural process, and that we don't need a time
traveler to prove it, so as to teach it in science class to high
school students (frankly, I'm not even sure that we get into that kind
of detail in high school. It's the basic concept that are dealt with,
with the details coming later, in college classes or extra credits, or
what have you). I mentioned before, if we only teach absolute
certainty in science, we might as well get rid of it as a subject.
Reasonable certainty is all we need. It's all you deal with in
Physics, so why not biology. We can' see atoms, yet we are reasonably
certain that they exist. The same is true for the mutations involved
in evolution. The same is NOT true for the idea of an intelligent
designer.

>Wikipedia is not my ideal reference but is free and easily accessed on
>the web. It has a long article on Origin of Life which you might find
>interesting.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
>
>Note, in particular, the number of different proposed models.

As I mentioned, let's stay away from origins of life. I'm aware of the
different models. I also concede that it is an open subject, that
there is no dominant consensus among scientists about it. But I'm also
aware that it is not taught as part of evolution in biology classes in
high school, for just that reason. So you and I should have no
difference of opinion in that context.

I'm aware of Wikipedia, and use it for reference. I'm not a science
scholar, so I find it quite adequate for my needs. Since it is an open
source encyclopedia, meaning that anyone can add to it, one can never
be absolutely sure of the sources. I find, that for evolution,
however, the best on line source is at Talk.origins. Check it out
here.

* http://www.talkorigins.org/

John P

.

Loading