Re: Evolution and Observation Gap

Richard Forrest wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

<snip>

My dear mother, rest her soul, told me that if my opponent in an debate
resorts to name-calling, it's because he has run out of rational
arguments.


I didn't call you names.

Really?

"If you can write this with a straight face you are either profoundly
ignorant, or a bald-faced liar." ? Richard Forrest

"Well, that would be the act of someone with intellectual honesty, but I
guess that we need to make allowances for the fact that you're a
creationist." ? Richard Forrest

"No, that's up to you. However, your misconceptions about the nature of
science revealed by your posting suggests that you need [an education
about science" ? Richard Forrest

"So now you are demonstrating your ignorance of the science of physics
as well." ? Richard Forrest

To which we must now add:

"I pointed out that you are demonstrating a monumental ignorance of the
history of evolutionary theory by making such stupid assertions.
"Bald-faced liar" was offered as an alternative to ignorance, but I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt."

"What's wrong with my little history lesson in the following paragraph
which puts you right on your evident ignorance of the subject?"

You asked me to show you the maths. I did. That's answering your
question.

Big revelation: A URL is not math. Unless, of course, you were the
author of any one of the referred papers.

Were you??

What do you predict
will be the next new species? What changes to existing species?



That's not the nature of prediction in science.

It's not? Gee, I think Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington would be
surprised to learn that. You reckon Eddington made that long trip for
nothing?

I'm being a little flip, but this is really the heart of the difference
between sciences. In physics, we can actually use the math to predict
the outcome of experiments. Then we perform the experiments, and see
what happens. It's not limited to physics, of course. We can even test
the effectiveness of things like

o M&M's as used in behavior modification
o Hypnosis in efforts to stop smoking.

I ask again: What's your experiment? Where's your math?

Understand, I don't expect to get an answer. It's my guess that you're
no mathematician, and have never performed an honest scientific
experiment in your life.


Physics cannot predict where the earth will be in its orbit 200 million
years from now, any more than it can predict the position and behaviour
of individual molecules in a gas.

ROFL!!! As it turns out, we are just about two weeks past the vernal
equinox. Since calendar years are tropical years, I feel quite confident
that, 200 million years from now, the earth will be -- wait for it --
two weeks past the vernal equinox.

If there should be a lesson from this exchange, it should be this:
Beware of making declarative statements about things you don't
understand. It only makes you look foolish.

Evolutionary theory cannot predict specific events, any more than can
many other branches of science. Meterologists cannot tell you with any
degree of certainty what the weather is going to be in your back yard
on Thursday of next week.

Perhaps not, but they _CAN_ give you probabilities, and bound the limits
of, say, temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc. That ain't bad for
a system that's chaotic.

Having said that, evolutionary theory can make quite specific
predictions about what happens to populations of organisms in
controlled envirionments. For example, bacterial strains exposed to
antibiotics will evolve resitance to those particular antibiotics.

Oh, please. Is that your best shot?


What
happens in the extraordinarily complex interactions of populations of
organism is far harder to predict. However, there are general sets of
predictions which can be made, for example that animals of the same
species living in a range of enviroiments will have a range of
physiological adaptations to each of those envirioments. In the case of
human populations, those living at high altitudes have adaptations to
cope with low oxygen levels. Interestingly, the high altitude peoples
of the Andes, and those of the Himalayas both have such adaptations,
but based on different genetic mutations.

As for predicting "the next new species", that is a rather silly
demand. Speciation is a gradual event, and there is no clear-cut line
at which a new species suddenly appears. There is no single definition
of a species in biology, and each of the several we have are fuzzy
round the edges.

I suggest that you extend your reading to species concepts in biology.

Ok, I'll make you a deal. I'll go read up more on biology, if you'll
read (and understand) a math book.

"See Spot Run."

Jack

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... A comment on the knowledge you display of science. ... link to papers providing an answer to your question. ... What changes to existing species? ... accurate predictions if the variables are constrained. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Principle of Falsifiability
    ... Predictions are theorems derived from the underlying ... > mathematical theory of the science. ... > mathematical physics or the context of pure mathematics. ... single fittest animal or plant in a species won't be spotted by a lucky ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sexes
    ... not only inference from genomes from various species. ... And then, of course, the haplotype variation within the genome of ... insist that science must obtain? ... "Consequences of the evolution of the GABAreceptor gene family." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)