Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cladking

Hijack from Is Evolution REAL Science?

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, beecee said:

The theory of evolution is so overwhelmingly supported by empirical scientific evidence, it is as certain as any scientific theory can be. The following gives two far more precise answer then I ever could.....https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-experiments-being-carried-out-to-test-the-theory-of-evolution A1 "Way too many to provide even a rudimentary list. Experimental evolution is a fully fledged subdiscipline, with most of it taking place in lab experiments with viruses and bacteria (out of practicality). The most well-known example is probably the Lenski Lab's long-term E. coli experiment which has been running for 24 years now and has demonstrated a whole range of evolutionary phenomena: E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

As for the kind of thing you mention in your comment, that's run-of-the-mill domestication. We've been experimenting with it for thousands of years now - our entire agricultural system is testament to the theory of evolution, as is the presence of dog breeds. All were produced by crossing together the animals and plants we like the most, selecting for traits that are favourable to us. That's how you turn a mighty auroch into a pathetic cow, or a wolf into a poodle.

I can't name specific experiments with dog evolution, as most of the truly experimental stuff to see how evolution works in these cases is done with model organisms (Drosophila flies)."

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

A2"The most interesting tests of evolution are in DNA. Only lately have full genome sequencing become easy.

One of the most compelling signs of evolution found in DNA is the traces of endogenous retroviruses (ERV's). To put it shortly, ERV's are like fingerprints left in DNA by diseases. the fingerprints generally have no functionality, and they go into a random place in your genome and are copied on to your offspring to the same location. Thus, if someone has the same ERV marker as someone else, then it is pretty much proven that they share a common ancestor.

The more genomes are sequenced it turns out that ERV insertions follow predictions made by the theory of evolution very precisely (like the one that we share numerous ERV markers with chimps). This is really hard to explain with anything else than evolution without saying "god did it to test our faith".

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Creationism of course can not be tested, and no evidence of any creationism by any magical deity exists to support that myth. In fact continued scientific experiments support the fact that all the elements that go to make up us and all other living things, were forged in the belly of stars. And of course the whole history of the universe back to the BB, can explain how stars formed, how planets came to be, and how the first fundamental particles arose out of spacetime at least as far back as 10-43 seconds post BB.

At some point though we arrive at a position of where space and time came from. As yet science has no actual information on that process, other then speculative hypotheticals as to how the universe was able to arise from nothing. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ By the same token, at this point, is really the only logical opening where perhaps an unscientific supernatural, magical hypothetical deity maybe slotted in by those more inclined with magic. The overwhelming success of science over the years though,  has me leaning towards the scientific explanation similar to that given in my link. 

Once your first two questions are answered, successfully, it logically answers the last two. 

What s been proven is that species change.

Humans have not been "experimenting" with "evolution" for thousands of years because experimental science is not that old. What you are describing is outside of metaphysics so has no meaning at all in real science.

The "theory of evolution" is dangerous but this is irrelevant to whether or not species change as a result of what must be described as "darwinian forces". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cladking said:

What s been proven is that species change.

So... evolution?

Quote

Humans have not been "experimenting" with "evolution" for thousands of years because experimental science is not that old.

Breeding.

Quote

 What you are describing is outside of metaphysics so has no meaning at all in real science.

You need to think before you write; non sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cladking said:

The "theory of evolution" is dangerous but this is irrelevant to whether or not species change as a result of what must be described as "darwinian forces". 

How is it dangerous? And how is it irrelevant, when it describes the mechanisms by which species change?

And why must natural selection (or even deliberate selection, as in breeding domesticated animals and plants) be described as "Darwinian forces"? Who says they must? And why not "Wallacian Forces"? And what about all the factors that Wallace and Darwin were unaware of?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Breeding.

Yeah, if you look at how much our food and animals have changed it is crazy.

Bigger, Sweeter, Less seeds, Coloration

Were they around, our ancestors would be hard pressed to even recognize some of them.

Can easily see how ability to breed or lack thereof could lead to dramatic changes in a natural setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

So... evolution?

Breeding.

You need to think before you write; non sequitur.

Change in species is real.  This has no bearing on whether or not we understand the forces that cause the change.  I believe we do not.

"Breeding" simply means we can intentionally cause specific changes in species.  It does not show "survival of the fittest" or most adaptable. 

No!   I said exactly what I meant.  "Science" has validity only within its metaphysics.  Anything outside experiment > observation is not science. 
"

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

How is it dangerous? And how is it irrelevant, when it describes the mechanisms by which species change?

And why must natural selection (or even deliberate selection, as in breeding domesticated animals and plants) be described as "Darwinian forces"? Who says they must? And why not "Wallacian Forces"? And what about all the factors that Wallace and Darwin were unaware of?

 

"Evolution" as it is currently understood underlies most peoples beliefs.  "Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. 

If our understanding reflects reality then it is still dangerous but  whether or not it is dangerous has no bearing on whether or not it's real. 

Darwin excused himself from being right when he simply wrote off the primary cause of change in species in the 2nd edition of his book.  He stated that populations of species "never" dip to a very low number.  He said they stay  relatively constant and this is apparently wrong and apparently the cause of change in species. This is what is observed when we select individuals for breeding:  This selection process itself is an artificial population bottleneck.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cladking said:

Change in species is real.  This has no bearing on whether or not we I understand the forces that cause the change.  I believe we I do not. 

Please don't extrapolate your lack of comprehension to entire scientific community..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cladking said:

Change in species is real.  This has no bearing on whether or not we understand the forces that cause the change.  I believe we do not.

Mutation.

Quote

"Breeding" simply means we can intentionally cause specific changes in species.  It does not show "survival of the fittest" or most adaptable.

"Survival of the fittest" is the ability to breed; more offspring  = greater fitness. We can breed to see which phenotypes will produce the most offspring in a given environment. The only difference between natural evolution and breeding is that the latter is contrived to a specific outcome, but it's evolution nevertheless. 'Evolution', by definition, is change in allele frequency over time, and that's what breeding does.

Quote

No!   I said exactly what I meant.  "Science" has validity only within its metaphysics.  Anything outside experiment > observation is not science. "

Metaphysics concerns ontology, and science doesn't do that.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mutation. 

Why mutation happens?

1) because DNA/RNA is made of Carbon, with tiny tiny amount of radioactive Carbon C-14 which is decaying in the wrong moment of cell subdivision.

2) because DNA/RNA is damaged by e.g. UV photons, gamma photons, and other quantum physics high energy interactions in the wrong moment like cell subdivision.

3) because DNA/RNA is damaged by highly reactive atoms/molecules/ions like free radicals.

4) .....

 

"The free radical theory of aging (FRTA) states that organisms age because cells accumulate free radical damage over time.[1] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-radical_theory_of_aging

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mutation.

"Survival of the fittest" is the ability to breed; more offspring  = greater fitness. We can breed to see which phenotypes will produce the most offspring in a given environment. The only difference between natural evolution and breeding is that the latter is contrived to a specific outcome, but it's evolution nevertheless. 'Evolution', by definition, is change in allele frequency over time, and that's what breeding does.

Metaphysics concerns ontology, and science doesn't do that.

I do not want to get bogged down in semantics here.  "Ontology" is philosophical anyway and I'm talking about science. 

The first definition of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science" and this is the concept to which I am referring. 

The "ability to have more off spring" is a concept that refers principally to non-human animal.  Having more off-spring has not been shown to change species.  Rather it results in stronger, faster, and smarter individuals (usually).  The weak and sick die out anyway without changing the species, either. 

 

Breeding works only by the artificial imposition of artificial bottlenecks and it is these bottlenecks that change species in the lab and in nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.