veracity of evolution

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86785 wrote:

Life remains a mystery and so does the origin of our existence. In my mind that is true biology.

I have totally given up to try to make you and others understand what the evolution theory is all about or make anyone change his/her mind, and eventhough pie-throwing:poke-eye: is fun sometimes, from now on I'm only here because I'm so curious. Do you guys belive in DNA? Or mutations at all? And, I know I'm a bit nagging, what about toenails and appendix? If God gave us toenails, nailpolish must be divine... Laughing

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;86825 wrote:

I really think some people should override their ego for one second and realize the implications of what they are asserting. To think that a half intelligent Joe Schmo on a random philosophy site with no knowledge whatsoever about the field they are criticizing can some how pose questions that are supposed to crumble the foundations of a theory that has stood the test of time in high glory for more than 150 years -over scientists that actually work in the field- is laughable. Way to downplay all biologists and the history within it as well. Do you really think these 'question crumblers' have only been bestowed by your innovative intellect? Please. I understand the ol' saying of "Aim High" but that line of thinking is clearly wishful.

My friend,

these are questions that retarded people would ask these scientists out of curiosity.

There is no grand ego scheme in asking the obvious questions and expecting them to be able to put up or shut up.

If you want to revere them that is your choice.

I have no agenda and nothing to gain in notoriety or ego, and don't care to crush anyone's theory.

I am simply stubborn about asking the same question that everyone should be asking them.

The fact that you are willing to accept without question doesn't make me some sort of monster now does it, lets get real here and just answer the questions that people bring to you.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Kielicious you are an arrogant young man Pathfinder is elder than you clearly he's right

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86850 wrote:

Kielicious you are an arrogant young man Pathfinder is elder than you clearly he's right

And once again Oden clearly helps me to make my case by just being the exact model of what I am talking about.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;86825 wrote:

? Please. I understand the ol' saying of "Aim High" but that line of thinking is clearly wishful.

"We do not know where we are stupid until we stick our necks out."
Richard Feynman

Let me remind you that people believed that the world was flat for thousands of years. People believe in lots of things in order to be accepted into the group. This is what the fable the Emperor's Clothes was all about. It takes a real explorers to stick their necks out - or a kid who doesn't know any better. The one clear indicator, for me, that something is rotten in Denmark, is when the defenders of the theory begin their defense by deriding the investigators. This is a hallmark for a weak set of ideas.

Evolutionary Theory is really a potpourri of ideas clustered together under the title of Evolutionary Theory. Darwin is safely tucked alongside lab experiments, and they are all declared equally valid. For me, they are not.

As a theory, Evolutionary has no where near succinctness nor the self-correction ability as that of Quantum and Relativity Theories which are held in check by their own mathematics. Physicists cannot hide from the mathematics or the implications thereof. How can anyone check all the of hypothesis, ideas, assumptions, speculations that are thrown under the umbrella of Evolutionary Theory? The theory is all over the place, with no one clear underlying idea, unlike Quantum and Relativity. This is why, for my metaphysics I turn to physics and the ideas that it implies.

Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86838 wrote:

My friend,

these are questions that retarded people would ask these scientists out of curiosity.

There is no grand ego scheme in asking the obvious questions and expecting them to be able to put up or shut up.

If you want to revere them that is your choice.

I have no agenda and nothing to gain in notoriety or ego, and don't care to crush anyone's theory.

Well one of the queries you pose doesn't challenge the theory (let alone risk crushing it) because the theory of evolution never claimed to define what life is or how it first occured. It works on a basic assumption that those seeking to understand it already know what defines life (biologists overwhelmingly agree on a set of parameters that have already been explained in this thread - respiration, reproduction and so on).

Evolution simply explains how the variety of life came to be, not where life itself arose from (a related but distinct field called abiogenesis).

So the challenge "evolution does not explain the origin of life and is therefore dubious to a degree" is a bit like saying "I doubt the veracity of what I learn in French lessons due to the fact it explains nothing about Spanish" - evolution and abiogenesis are not one and the same.

The other objection I've seen you raise that has not been very well addressed here (though it is a common complaint and is often debunked in elementary explainations of evolution) is why transitional forms don't currently exist and are only found in the fossil record.

This is complicated to answer and requires understanding of a few different fields.

COMPETITION
Forms of life tend not to share resources or display alturistic principles to those other than their own populations. There are limited resources for food and energy within given ecosystems, so in order to best ensure it's own survival an organism needs to exploit what it needs (and a bit more in order to account for possible future shortfalls).

ECOLOGICAL NICHES
Ecological systems provide opportunities for different organisms, but some organisms do better in certain environments than others. Lions are perfectly suited to be the apex predators in semi-arid plains, but are not suited to tropical forests like tigers, who are not suited to arctic regions like polar bears.

Take an animal out of it's ecological niche and it will struggle to survive. We can see this happening to the polar bear now, their numbers are dwindling due to the fact that it's ecological niche requires a large area of year-round sea ice on which to hunt seals - something that is in increasingly short supply.

Now transitional forms typically exploit new niches for particular types of creatures. For example the earliest amphibians were able to exploit the land in a way fishes were not.

But because they were not as equipped to exploit this environment as later forms with stronger legs or less permeable skins they lost out due to eing less able to compete (regard the fate of the British Red Squirrel for an example of this happening in the modern era - a well adapted species is nevertheless being pushed out of it's environment and into extiction due to the introduction of a foreign species better able to exploit the ecological niche they now share).

So the reason most transitional forms are extinct is that either the environment has changed to the extent of ruining their ecological niche (as is happening with the polar bear) or that another animal exploits their niche better than they did (as is happening with the red squirrel).

Note that it's not entirely true to say that transition forms no longer exist - we think of fish as wholly aquatic animals who breathe using gills - yet there are fish that are largely terrestrial and there are fish that have lungs. We think of lizards as animals that cannot fly - but gliding lizards that might well give rise to a flying strain exist. Monotremes are mammals that lay eggs. Such species are good examples of animals that do not sit neatly into Biblical kinds or commonly excepted notions of what a given trope is - but they do exist and are well suited to their niches.

Were those your only objections or do you have more? It's obviously a big topic and hard to cover...

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 09:22 AM ----------

richrf;86858 wrote:

"We do not know where we are stupid until we stick our necks out."
Richard Feynman

...

The theory is all over the place, with no one clear underlying idea, unlike Quantum and Relativity. This is why, for my metaphysics I turn to physics and the ideas that it implies.

Rich

"If you think you understand quantum theory - you don't understand quantum theory."
Richard Feynman

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Kielicious;86825 wrote:

"If you think you understand quantum theory - you don't understand quantum theory."
Richard Feynman

Precisely. This is why I love reading about John Stewart Bell, David Bohm, John Wheeler, and other physicists who are constantly challenging hardened notions to see where it goes. They are sticking their necks out because they know that they do not know. I love this stuff.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

How would you sum it up in your own words?

For example, I think evolution CAN be summed up simply:

1) Living things reproduce themselves.
2) The reproductions are not perfect - there is always variation.
3) Some variations are better at surviving in the organisms environment than others.

That's evolution's core mechanic - everything else is just extrapolation married to what we know of natural history, chemistry, etc.

Can quantum be summed up so easily?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86874 wrote:

How would you sum it up in your own words?

For example, I think evolution CAN be summed up simply:

1) Living things reproduce themselves.
2) The reproductions are not perfect - there is always variation.
3) Some variations are better at surviving in the organisms environment than others.

That's evolution's core mechanic - everything else is just extrapolation married to what we know of natural history, chemistry, etc.

Can quantum be summed up so easily?

1) This has been know for thousands of years.

2) Has also been observed for thousands of years, though not necessarily part of any distinct there, but certainly ancient civilizations understood and adjusted their thoughts to variations in all organisms.

3) This has also been very well know for many thousands of years. The Spartans made ample use of this notion as did farmers.

The issue I see, is how these core ideas are exploded into all directions without ample oversight and self-checking. The mathematics of Quantum and Relativity keeps everyone honest, because the equations are predictive and verifiable.

Quantum physics can be summed up with Schrodinger's equations plus the Uncertainty Principle. Special Relativity and General Relativity with their respective equations, the most well known one being (simplified) E-mc**2.

The underlying meaning of these equations can be interpreted in many ways. But the interpretations are kept distinct from the equations. They are not rolled into the theory in a haphazard manner.

What I have found is that Evolutionary Theory has all of this stuff rolled into it, such as how humans evolved. If we stick to the three core principles as Evolutionary Theory, that is fine. After that, everything is interpretations and speculations, just like it is with Quantum Physics. They do not call it the deBroglie-Bohm Theory. They call it the deBroglie-Bohm Interpretation of Qunatum Mechanics. Quite a different and more methodical way to handle it. Quantum Physics clearly understand the difference between a verifiable theory and an unverifiable (at present) interpretation or even metaphysics as the Bohm Implicate Order. I certainly don't go around proclaiming the Bohm Implicate Order as some theory. It is a metaphysical model and Bohm presented it as such.

Darwin's Origins and other ideas about how human life evolved, is not a theory. It is pure speculation in my eyes. This is different from other observable and repeatable phenomenon that you described in your three core concepts.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

To be honest Rich, I don't see your 3 steps as summing up the idea so much as asserting that it has always been apparent (which, seeing as it came into general understanding in order to account for the fact that Newton's ideas didn't fully account for the very fast or the very small, seems unlikely to me). Even if the Spartans did consciously use quantum (I doubt it) how does that fact alone help explain it?

Instead of feeling that I have read a good summary of quantum, I feel that you've just thrown a few buzzwords my way (Schrodinger's Principles, E=MCsqrd).

These are examples and attempts at a historical precedent (which also exists for evolution - which Aristotle outlined two millenia before Darwin offered his explanation) - not a summary of a theory.

As for evolution applied to vwhat we know or suspect of Natural History, to me its no so much a matter of accepting that it is 'the one true way' as it is acknowledging that it is - by far - the best argument thusfar presented for the apparent diversity of life and a theory that fits (and anticipated as far as many of Darwin's ideas are concerned) with what we know of paleontology, genetics, geology and other branches of science.

Now, this does not mean I'm not interested in attempts to challenge it - but "it's too complex" or "it's wrong because there aren't any transitional species" aren't worthy challenges - they just prove that the challenger hasn't taken a good look at the subject they seek to debunk.

2 Replies

@richrf,

Rich, math is purely speculative, yet you clearly have great respect for it. Your position, as you express it, is not consistent.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Hiya Dave,

welcome to the thread.

I don't expect anyone to come late into a thread abd be able to know every single post so you probably missed the ones that give the reasons why I have the problems I do but just to briefly restate them:

I agree with what your defintion of evolution is and have no problem with that. However, as with many other aspects of metaphysics, they go unanswered by biologists simply because they ask questions that cannot be answered.

This does not mean that the two should be separated. To my thinking, everything is bound together in one huge mystery, all of which needs to be a part of the other in order to be what it is. Evolution may be an actual process. The evidence certainly points in that direction. But not to the degree that it is not challenged by extremely difficult questioning doubts. Many of those have to do with the fact that evolution suggests a reality that is only comprised of the biological as though there is no such thing as the underlying mysteries that make it all possible in the first place.
Its like looking at a bottle of coke and studying the chemicals that are in it and experimenting with what they can do and how they are mixed together, and yet ignoring completely how they got into the bottle in the first place. Evolution attempts to declare that they know where coke comes from without knowing how it got into the bottle. This is my problem. No declarations until the time is right. When you can prove it do so, until then it must all remain hypothetical regardless of haw many people follow it.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86883 wrote:

To be honest Rich, I don't see your 3 steps as summing up the idea so much as asserting that it has always been apparent (which, seeing as it came into general understanding in order to account for the fact that Newton's ideas didn't fully account for the very fast or the very small, seems unlikely to me). Even if the Spartans did consciously use quantum (I doubt it) how does that fact alone help explain it?

Sorry for the confusion. The three steps were comments on the three core concepts of evolution which you enumerated, which I think have been acknowledged since ancient times. I know that they were embraced by Daoists and Daoist medical doctors. I have no problem with these concepts, but they are observations that have been around for a very long time.

Quantum can be summed up by: Schrodinger's Equations and the Uncertainty Principle. These, I believe, are the core concepts.

Relativity: by their respective equations, E=mc**2

Dave Allen;86883 wrote:

As for evolution, to me its no so much a matter of accepting that it is true as it is acknoweldeging that it is - by far - the best argument thusfar presented for the apparent diversity of life.

From your perspective they may be. But others may differ. For most Quantum physicists the Copenhagen Interpretation is the best interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, while others may argue for deBroglie-Bohm (John Stewart Bell). The nice thing is that the interpretations are kept separate from the theory.

Personally, I am very dubious about many of the concepts that are brought forth under the Evolutionary Theory umbrella, and I would prefer that they are taken out from under the umbrella and discussed as speculations, beliefs, or interpretations, which I believe is where they belong.

Dave Allen;86883 wrote:

Now, this does not mean I'm not interested in attempts to challenge it - but "it's too complex" or "it's wrong because there aren't any transitional species" aren't good challenges - they just prove that the challenger hasn't taken a good look at the subject.

I think it is easier to challenge these individual ideas, once they are separated from the core concepts and treated as something else other than a theory. In other words, Evolutionary Theory, I believe, needs a de-cluttering and house cleaning.

Rich

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86883 wrote:

To be honest Rich, I don't see your 3 steps as summing up the idea so much as asserting that it has always been apparent (which, seeing as it came into general understanding in order to account for the fact that Newton's ideas didn't fully account for the very fast or the very small, seems unlikely to me). Even if the Spartans did consciously use quantum (I doubt it) how does that fact alone help explain it?

Instead of feeling that I have read a good summary of quantum, I feel that you've just thrown a few buzzwords my way (Schrodinger's Principles, E=MCsqrd).

These are examples and attempts at a historical precedent (which also exists for evolution - which Aristotle outlined two millenia before Darwin offered his explanation) - not a summary of a theory.

As for evolution applied to vwhat we know or suspect of Natural History, to me its no so much a matter of accepting that it is 'the one true way' as it is acknowledging that it is - by far - the best argument thusfar presented for the apparent diversity of life and a theory that fits (and anticipated as far as many of Darwin's ideas are concerned) with what we know of paleontology, genetics, geology and other branches of science.

Now, this does not mean I'm not interested in attempts to challenge it - but "it's too complex" or "it's wrong because there aren't any transitional species" aren't worthy challenges - they just prove that the challenger hasn't taken a good look at the subject they seek to debunk.

Dave I suggest to you that when evidence arises that actually proves that evolution is an actual indisputable fact, the entire world will know it within hours.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 10:37 AM ----------

Rich , read your PMs

1 Reply

@alcaz0r,

alcaz0r;86885 wrote:

Rich, math is purely speculative, yet you clearly have great respect for it. Your position, as you express it, is not consistent.

One can go that route if one would like to. I am open to the discussion.

I have always believed that totally consistent paths lead you back to where you started. I like exploring different paths.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 10:50 AM ----------

Dave Allen;86874 wrote:

3) Some variations are better at surviving in the organisms environment than others.

I would like to say that the word some should be underscored here. I personally do not believe that it is the sole determining factor for the evolution of species nor may it even be an important determining factor. But as the wording stands, it is fine with me. Beyond this, it is a matter of metaphysics.

Rich

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

It's not hugely difficult to read 290 posts.

Pathfinder;86886 wrote:

However, as with many other aspects of metaphysics, they go unanswered by biologists simply because they ask questions that cannot be answered.

Well Biology tends to sit within Chemistry which sits within Physics. So assumptions not made by Chemistry (let alone Physics) won't be of much interest to Biologists.

Now, before any claim of narrow mindedness is levelled I will restate - it's not a weakness of a good French teacher that he or she doesn't speak Spanish.

So if your sole objection is that Biology doesn't examine the metaphysical then it's more or less moot because theories about the metaphysical are based on assumptions (usually rather subjective and personal ones) that are diffgerent to the central assumptions of the scientific method (that observable phenomena lead us to a greater understanding of reality and that if your observable phenomena can be tersted and shown to corrolate to the tests and ideas of others then the likelihood of them leading to a greater understanding of reality is even greater).

Evolution can be tested (this is why Paleontologists know which rocks to look in in order to find certain ancient species) but a metaphysical concept cannot (as far as I know) - therefore evolution will remain a cornerstone of biological explanations for how life diversified, unless someone comes up with a better idea or shows how metaphysical alternative ideas can be tested.

Quote:

This does not mean that the two should be separated.

In order to remain clear about what science is they need be. If an individual prefers to construct a personal belief about ancient history (and why not) then that's their perogative - but science classes should be for science which works by making the assumption outlined above.

Quote:

Evolution may be an actual process. The evidence certainly points in that direction. But not to the degree that it is not challenged by extremely difficult questioning doubts.

Right, but some of the doubts you elucidated in this thread were easily answered (by Oden's list of transitional forms, for example).

Wouldn't you rather an honest appraisal of what it is - which you can only learn through taking the leap that metaphysical concerns may not be an issue - then any challenges you do conjure up will be better constructed for understanding what they seek to test?

Quote:

Many of those have to do with the fact that evolution suggests a reality that is only comprised of the biological as though there is no such thing as the underlying mysteries that make it all possible in the first place.

I'm sorry - but that's just wrong. Biology is understood through Chemistry - no Biologist would deny this as far as I know. The keystone of modern evolution are polynucleotides which are Chemical.

Evolution is Biological, and Chemical and Geological and Physical and Historical and Psychological - and more...

Quote:

Its like looking at a bottle of coke and studying the chemicals that are in it and experimenting with what they can do and how they are mixed together, and yet ignoring completely how they got into the bottle in the first place.

It's an old challenge to compare evolution to the creation of designed objects. However, it is a strawman argument. As I stated evolution is:

1) Living orgnaisms reproduce (a coke bottle and the coke inside is not a living organism).
2) The reproductions are always different - there are always variation.
3) Some variations are better than others at surviving in their ecological niche.

Now whilst coke bottle design, or the recipes of coke might have undergone evolutions because they are designed objects it's not a good idea to use them as anologies to evolution by natural selection. The selections of coke bottles have to do with things like fashion, health and safety legislation, recyclable materials and other concerns - a veritable cornucopia of effectors - but nothing compared to the vairiety of factors determining natural selection.

How did the coke get into the bottle? Man put it there.

How did life start?

Well, it's been said umpteen times in this thread (I've read it after all) - that's a matter for Abiogenesis, not evolution.

Quote:

Evolution attempts to declare that they know where coke comes from without knowing how it got into the bottle.

No, sorry, that's just wrong again.

To use the (somewhat misleading seeing as it uses designed objects as an example) analogy - evolution helps explain why there are so many different shapes of coke bottle, or why we don't see certain shapes or ingredients any more.

It does not explain it's origin (abiogenesis) or why and wherefores (need testable hypotheses in order to make such questions a subject of scientific enquiry).

Quote:

This is my problem. No declarations until the time is right. When you can prove it do so, until then it must all remain hypothetical regardless of haw many people follow it.

The only declaration is that of the best argument made for the variety of life tabled thusfar.

In fact it is only metaphysical arguments that seem to me to make followers of arguments that offer no proof or model for the claims they make. Unlike evolution which is a working model, consistent with other scientific models and backed up by masses of evidence.

Indisputable 100% proof? No - but the best argument on the table by some degree.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Quantum theory makes open allowance for probabilistic uncertainty and lack of observability. In other words, its succinctness has a huge asterisk next to it -- it acknowledges a degree of ambiguity that I think Rich is overlooking. Furthermore, because many observations of subatomic particles are only possible under highly artificial conditions, (i.e. particle accelerators), one needs to consider the degree to which such observations are generalizable to non-experimental conditions.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86887 wrote:

Quantum can be summed up by: Schrodinger's Equations and the Uncertainty Principle. These, I believe, are the core concepts.

Rich, I did ask for a summary in your own words - which should be easy to give if quantum is as simple as you say. It seems to me you can offer no more than buzzwords for further reading.

Can you actually provide a simple explanation of quantum in your own words?

It's cool if you can't, by the way, I don't really mind. But if you can't I would rather you just admitted it so that we can move on rather than continue a lengthy round of referring me to thrid party explanations that may or may not be simple.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 11:26 AM ----------

richrf;86893 wrote:

I would like to say that the word some should be underscored here.

Of course - the other varieties are the ones that tend not to reach breeding age, and thus go extinct.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86911 wrote:

Rich, I did ask for a summary in your own words - which should be easy to give if quantum is as simple as you say. It seems to me you can offer no more than buzzwords for further reading.

Can you actually provide a simple explanation of quantum in your own words?

You seem to be asking for an interpretation of the math, because it is the math that defines the theory - not words. If you are looking for an interpretation, I can give you my own, but it is not the Theory. The Theory is written in math.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 11:31 AM ----------

Dave Allen;86911 wrote:

Of course - the other varieties are the ones that tend not to reach breeding age, and thus go extinct.

I believe it is much more than this, but this would be my own interpretation and would be more under the heading of metaphysics.

Rich

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86911 wrote:

Of course - the other varieties are the ones that tend not to reach breeding age, and thus go extinct.

And that's just natural selection, which despite its gross overemphasis is not the only mechanism of population genetic changes as a function of time.

The entire population of the world outside of Africa was founded by a small subpopulation of Nilo-Saharans from northeastern Africa. That is a founder effect. Or in plant evolution, all terrestrial green plants, from moss up to giant sequoias, are the descendents of green algae (but not red algae or brown algae). Again, a founder effect, not a selection effect. The small founding population is not genetically representative of the ancestral population.

1 Reply

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know