Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


Jack Crenshaw wrote:
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

A comment on the knowledge you display of science.


"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

More of an observation on the intellectual honesty of creationists
drawn from extensive reading of creationist sources


"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


A comment on the knowledge you display of science.


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

A comment on the knowledge you display of science.


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."

A comment on the knowledge you display of science.


"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.

You asked to be "shown the maths". I gave you references to URLs which
link to papers providing an answer to your question.

Are you suggesting that the only reasonable response is that I should
post the whole papers, but only if I am the author of those papers?



Were you??


No. I never claimed to be. You asked to be "shown the maths", and I did
so by pointing you at sources which do exactly that.

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


So can physics predict the location of every atom in a gas ten seconds
from now?

Any experiment is limited by the nature of what is being investigated,
and in physics systems can frequently be greatly simplified so that a
small number of variable need to be taken into account. The same can be
done in some experiments in evolutionary theory. Experiments into the
response of bacteria to stimuli in controlled laboratory experiments
produce highly consistent results. Experiments carried out on the same
strains of bacteria in the wild are far less predictable, as there are
many more variable involved.

The behaviour of weather systems can be modelled using a surprisingly
small number of variables, all of which can be acurately modelled using
basic equations in physics. This does not make weather predictable.

We use maths to predict the outcome of experiments in evolutionary
science, and to predict the changes to populations in nature. I gave
you references to papers which descibe just such studies. If you chose
to ignore them, that's your business.

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?


Scientific investigation is not limited to experiment.

Science is basically hypothesis testing. Hypotheses are formulated from
the evidence, and tested by experiment and observation.

My particular branch of science is vertebrate palaeontology. This is a
science in which hypotheses are based largely on observation. Astronomy
is another such science. Both involve mathematical analysis of data,
and as it happens my research involves a lot of statistical analysis.

Understand, I don't expect to get an answer.

Your question is framed in such a way as to demand an answer which is
irrelevant to the issue!

It's my guess that you're
no mathematician, and have never performed an honest scientific
experiment in your life.


Well you'd be wrong.


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.

Your confidence would be misplaced.The orbits of planets in the solar
system are chaotic in the long term. In fact, they become unpredictable
over time scales of a few million years.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/solarsys.html#
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1992/split/pnu089-4.htm

Interestingly, this long-term instability has been confirmed by
stratigraphic studies of the Newark Supergroup.

You can download the paper from here: http://tinyurl.com/j6z6r



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.

Quite so.
How do you feel now?


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?


No, it's an example of how evolutionary theory can be used to make
accurate predictions if the variables are constrained. The interactions
of living organisms are vastly more complex that those of weather
systems.



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.

If you like, I'll send you a copy of my paper "An application of
multivariate ana;ysis in the reconstruction of the skeleton of a
specimen of Muraenosaurus cf M. leedsii"

Or perhaps you don't think that statistics is mathematics?

One of the key elements of my current PhD study is the application of
mathematical and statistical methods to the analysis of elements of the
post-cranial anatomy of plesiosaurs. Perhaps you don't think I have
much grasp of mathematics, but evidently the authorities in Leicester
University do.

Who do you think is a more reliable judge of such things?

Now run away and get an education. You are not doing yourself any
favours by exposing your ignorance in this way.


"See Spot Run."

Jack

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... Richard Forrest wrote: ... science revealed by your posting suggests that you need [an education ... What changes to existing species? ... predictions which can be made, for example that animals of the same ...
    (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: Is physics a science?
    ... Quite simply no theory (no matter how wrong) need fail. ... It is actually a good example for defining the difference between science and technology. ... you can make certain predictions about what ANY ... Neither does it explain why the speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails totally to explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes instantly. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry of fundamental forces *is* a scientific theory, ... predictions of measurable phenomena, and then experiments are set up ... Science really doesn't give a damn about two models that make ... You are under the impression somehow that relativity should ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Dimension of Time
    ... symmetry by saying that it is by nature unobservable, ... realm of religious faith and not science any longer. ... of the exotic predictions or difficult questions of existing theories. ... (and therefore without the expected level of energy input). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)