Evolution? How?

Hi Wandeljw,

I don't want us to confuse majority opinion with accuracy.

Isn't it often the case in science that ideas that are held in almost universal acceptance by one generation are the discarded absurdities of a future generation?

Is general acceptance of the scientific community really so important as being able to question the status quo?

Will middle-school type peer pressure and fear of being unpopular or different keeping us from asking questions that we ought to ask?

Ideas are tested in Science.

Quote, "Isn't it often the case in science that ideas that are held in almost universal acceptance by one generation are the discarded absurdities of a future generation?"

That's not science.

real life,

I think it is normal to rely on a consensus of experts in subjects where I lack expertise. No one can be an expert at everything.

When the "us" to whom you refer are scientists in any one of the many scientific disciplines which refer to and confirm a theory of biological evolution, you have nothing to worry about. It is the applicability of the tenets of the scientific method which determine the accuracy of a theoretical construct, and majority opinion follows that demonstrable accuracy, it does not create it.

It really is tedious that all you have to offer are word games.

Introduction to the Scientific Method


The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses
As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."


In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion
The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

Hi Wandeljw,

I think your failure to answer my question has probably answered my question.

Thanks.

This is incorrect again. The study stated that the Eda gene in multiple species of sticklebacks[/u] did not express differently , but produced the exact same trait.

At the same time, the Eda gene in the mouse did NOT always produce the same trait in all mice. The trait was not simply 'absent in some and present in others'. Instead the trait was present, but to be found on one of three possible genes.

This was NOT what the researchers expected and they did NOT consider the Eda gene's effect to be consistent.

--------------------------------------





For those who missed the article in question

from http://urwatch.com/Science--Animal%20&amp;%20Insects_files/Animal-March01-31--05.htm

real life ThATS THE BEAUTY OF SCIENCE, A Theory works until its disproven or, more likely, most evidence doesnt support it. How does Creationism work? Its fairly immutable based on zero evidence. In fact , as I still repeat, name me one scientific advance thats been forwarded using Creationist hypotheses
To start with rl, this is merely an expression of a trait governed by GENE FREQUENCY, not multiple genes. All the species with armor are marine, and all the low to no armor species are fresh water. There are almost 75 species of sticklebacks (I had to visit my "Treatise on Vertebrate Paleo"), The sticklebacks studied at Stanford were marine and a series of freshwater ones that were located within lakes from W US to Iceland that were colonized since the end of the last Ice Age. (Less than 10K) So they have a time marker and a gene expression in fish.Mutations in the Eda gene in humans, defines a genetic disorder, because the Eda gene codes for a protein trhat is expressed in ectodermal tissue. (It normally tells cells to form teeth, hair , and sweat glands). In a mutated form, it screws up the standard operations of the genes function and causes skin lesions, hairlessness and no teeth.

Darwin himself discussed this condition with the "toothless men of Sind"
Since its an ectodermally involved protein sequence, the sticklebacks have an example of a gene that, in increased frequency of its mutated form causes a beneficial trait rather than a clinical disease as it does in humans.


So, considering the known timelines of freshwater colonization by marine sticklebacks, the researchers have found that mutations of this gene dont cause a clinical condition as in humans, but nstead, causes an evolutionary change in colonizing members of the genus.
As they checked their data, the Stanford team went back and looked at more marine sticklebacks and found that they carry the "wild" gene but at very low frequencies

The really interesting thing was, as a check on their work, the Stanford team employed genetic engineering to reinsert the wild gene into freshwater sticklebacks and, tadaaa, their progeny showed full body armor just like their great great great (e^n) granparents.
Youre use of this data doesnt seem to support a Creationist view at all, in fact quite the opposite

The point that I was addressing is that the gene function (whether wild or mutated) was consistent in the sticklebacks , and was not consistent in the mice.

This was what surprised the researchers, who apparently expected inconsistency in the sticklebacks based on the previous work in mice.

What do you think it means?

Nonsense. Just to be a stickler here, we're talking about sticklebacks. Read what is there:



Within the species at study, sticklebacks, the gene and its effects pertaining to body armor are consistent. It is of interest to note that within other species, such as mice, exodermic change may be bought on by that gene and by other genes, but that is of interest only, and has nothing to do with the fact that particular gene, Eda, and its armor-abandoning effects are consistent within the species at study, which is sticklebacks.

rl
OY VEY, (BUSTING HEAD AGAINST WALL REPEATEDLY) I keep it up and do they write? No , they just go on their ways

Here ECTODYSPLASIN GENE. This was prepared by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

CI wrote You guys are still flogging the old horse...unless one of you were reincarnated from some really really far back past life then no one was there to observe the creation of the universe therefore an accurate description of the creation of the universe can not be described (unless you happen to believe the Bible and what God hath caused to be described through mans writings. But no doubt you will consider this a moot point for all of the various "scientific reasons.... Keep flogging.

Gosh, another christian in our midst.

Ginril, it's important to remember that "real life's" object is simply to keep a false patina of doubt apparent in the discussion. If this is an intelligent individual, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then he's understood every point you've made. He repeats this nonsense because he wants such tripe to continually appear at a site with a high page rank. That's why he and his fellow travelers keep puking it up--and that's why it should never go unchallenged.

Jackofalltrades, while the "Big Bang" itself is and likely ever will remain unobservable, we can confirm the Plank Horizon:

*


where G is the universal gravitational constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light. If h-bar is used instead of plain h, the corresponding time is



For those who's eyes have just glazed over, what all that amounts to is that the math works, indicating probability very closely aproaching unity that The Big Bang occurred.



*: Thanks to MathWorld-dot-Com

Been here (awhile back) said that...why bother 'cause neither side will budge and the "mugwumps" will still sit on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other...I'll check back again in a few months, but it seems that it's still the same old slime mold :wink:

A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there. (Charles R Darwin) HHHMMMMMMMM?

On a more serious note now... Concerning the development of one cell into whatever eventually crawled on the land, I still have a problem with this... Was that first creature an herbivore or carnivore, and what did it eat? Where did the plants come from...a variation of that first cell splitting into a plant like creation? Did the plants come first or the animals, and how did that first "living thing" exist. What nourished it? How did fertile soil with nutrients in it come to be to enable plants to grow? How did it reproduce? Was it just one creature or several and did they have different sexes or if it was just one then how did it reproduce itself? I realise some of these topics may have been covered earlier in these some 600 plus pages, but rather than read through all this again...