Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


Jack Crenshaw wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:


<snip>



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.


That is almost certainly incorrect. Due to minor perturbations in
orbits, it is impossible to reliably predict planetary orbits over long
time scales. In fact, it is not even known if Earth's orbit is stable
over geologic timescales. It may very well be destined to fly off into
deep space (not even including the effects of unknown bodies).

The general problem is called the Three-Body Gravitational Problem.
Even though the system is deterministic, it cannot be resolved
analytically. Poincaré's work showed that the general case was
*chaotic* - deterministic, yet inherently unpredictable.

Here's a cool simulation that gives you a feel for the problem.
http://www.dynamical-systems.org/threebody/index.html

You could Google for specifics.




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.


The Theory of Evolution puts bounds on what possible characteristics of
extant organisms which could plausibly be discovered, bounds on what
extant organisms that could plausibly be discovered and in what strata,
and bounds on what possible organisms could evolve naturally in the
future.

For instance, a Centaur could not have naturally evolved. As a cross
between humans and horses (and knowing that humans and horses cannot
interbreeed), it is evidence of design (myth) not descent.

Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



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

  • More Vatican Support for Evolution
    ... ROME -- Charles Darwin's theory that all living organisms have ... and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. ... For example, using mice, monkeys and other nonhuman species to ... Some of the latest research in evolutionary biology has also shown ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
    ... > definition for "species", ... > Consider that, again, the vast majority of organisms that are born ... This definition, although admirable {actually it's not, as Ehrlich ... systematic biology, dept of biological sciences, Stanford University. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Meiotic drive is just selection. ... I deny the validity of a term like "species selection". ... because it kills of organisms who ... reproduction that has nothing to do with genetic or phenotypic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is my CS instructor nuts?
    ... species, homo sapiens sapiens, there are "innate" differences which are ... even those biology texts which don't address the issue, ... contain a single species entry for all humans alive today. ... rather than the science of evolution. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... >> prediction unless and until you can state explicitly where that barrier ... >> species, or whatever taxonomic level interests you). ... > divergent explanation to the ToE: ... even though they are not useful in the living organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)