dk

<ol type="1">[*] dk: answer is all to ready, nobody raised the question because everybody mistook the pretext of evolution for context. ...
lpetrich: What are the "pretext" and the "context" of evolution?
dk: The context is everything under and over the sun. More seriously, The evolution of life is an effort to explain (understand, know) empirically what life has become on the basis of what life used to be. By pretext, I mean outside the framework of causation.[*]dk:The only progress I’ve noticed come from the genome entails defective chromosomes of inbred dogs and lab mice that match similar ailments in people, and this analysis is systematic, not evolution based.
lpetrich: I suggest that you check out the Genome News Network some time.
dk: I looked at the time line Genome News publishes on the Genome. I’m sorry, but I must take issue. The timeline places Darwin before Mendel. In fact Mendel’s work was developed independent of Darwin’s Theory, and gathered dust until the 20th Century. Mendel founded genetics not Darwin. Genetics lead to the discovery of DNA, not Darwin. The science of evolution benefited from Genetics, not visa versa.[*]Xixax: But that would be of much less use if we did not understand why we have ailments and genomes similar to dogs and mice.
dk: That’s subjective. Maybe if science hadn’t gotten preoccupied with Darwin’s finches, survival of the favored races and biometrics they would have taken the time to read Mendel’s paper on genetics, and we’d have a cure for cancer, AIDs and MDR microbes. ...
lpetrich: dk shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what he discusses. The "survival of favored races" is exactly what produces MDR microbes -- being "favored" in this case meaning surviving efforts to poison them.
dk: I don’t think that was what Darwin had in mind when he published, “Origin of Species” subtitled, “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life". What do you think?[*]dk: So far, nobody has brought a drug derived from the human genome to market, and they have tried to get several drugs approved. ...
lpetrich: It takes time, but it will happen.
dk: I read a lot of hype, in fact it now seems the drugs will come from proteinonics. I’m not saying drugs won’t come from the gnome, I’m saying the gnome was hyped by evolutionary theory. Even more to the point I’m saying the humane gnome is founded upon genetics, not evolutionary theory, though the knowledge base of evolutionary theory benefits.[*]dk: I find your last few paragraphs persuasive. Personally I don’t think the purpose of life is to selfishly pass on one’s DNA, but hey if that’s what rocks you jock it’s a free country. I don’t want my kids in k0-k12, or my neighbor’s kids, forcibly indoctrinated with a curriculum designed to induce selfishness as the purpose of life, especially under the authority of science.
lpetrich: I don't see how one deduces selfishness from evolutionary biology.
dk: You might want to pickup a copy of “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins wrote. I understand Dawkins doesn’t speak for anyone but himself, but he’s probably the most famous evolutionary biologist. I didn’t bring him up, Xixan did.[*]lpetrich: Also, one important triumph of evolutionary biology is explaining self-sacrificing behavor (altruism). In many cases, the answer is kin selection -- the self-sacrificing benefits others with many of one's genes, which allows that tendency for self-sacrifice to perpetuate. This explains:
-Cells in multicellular organisms. The vast majority of them will not survive the death of the overall organism, and many of them die before:
-Surface-layer cells: skin, digestive system, bark, wood (on the inside, but much the same principle)
-Removed body parts: leaves of deciduous plants
-Cellular hara-kiri: apoptosis or Programmed Cell Death, which is a necessary part of some growth processes
-Parental care: that's a rather obvious one, and it takes numerous forms.
-Non-reproducing ("worker") insects and Naked Mole Rats: they help their parents do the reproducing. Worker honeybees carry this principle even farther, having barbed stingers that stick in their targets, making their sting a kamikaze sting. Queens, by comparison, have smooth stingers, because if they do not survive their stinging, they cannot reproduce.
-Aging. After one has done enough reproducing, there is not very much reason to live much longer -- in fact, one may go into competition with one's offspring.
dk: I suppose so, in a sense evolutionary science should take credit for everything under the sun. Hey, did evolutionary science build the Brooklyn Bridge, or just the first one’s to sell it.[/list=a]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

RufusAtticus

So is rolling dice a "random" event?

dk

<ol type="1">[*]dk: The statement is a truism. Whatever evidence exists about evolution, found or unfound, can’t possible be contrary to evolution.
lpetrich: There are many potential evidences that could refute evolution: A rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian strata would refute evolution; a horse with feathered wings would refute evolution. Evolution stands because all of the evidence supports it and no refuting evidence has been found
dk: Get real, no matter what paleontologists find, the theory of evolution will be modified to explain the new evidence, or the evidence will be discarded as an outlier or mischief. Its a no-brainer.[*]dk: How much the theory of evolution will change over time presents a much better question. The theory of evolution has changed significantly over the last 20 years.
lpetrich: You've had to shift your argument; now, it's not that the evidence for evolution is overstated but that evolution changes. However, that's not an indictment against evolution but a re-affirmation that it is science. All of science can change as new information is gathered; that's one of the big differences between science and religion.
dk: I haven’t shifted my argument, I’ve argued from the standpoint of Moderate Realism. My position is that concepts, structures and forms are intellectual constructs, while material things are finite and particular. In science the subject matter contains the evidence therefore is finite and particular. In philosophy and religion the evidence contains intellectual constructs that are innately absolute and universal. It is by an act of intellectual judgment from mental constructs that people find -meaning or -emptiness in the finite particulars of everyday life, but as a matter of social intercourse people find religion essential for reasons unrelated to evolution.[*]dk: Evolution is a truism, so whatever evidence is found ultimately supports evolution.
lpetrich: Evolution is true because all of the evidence found supports it.
dk: You may believe evolution is true, cool so do I. Lets make the distinction clear. As doctrine evolution explains the evidence. As science the evidence explains evolution.[*]dk: Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. This isn’t about science but religion. That’s fine but then have the stones to call evolution a religion.
lpetrich: Just how in the hell did you come up with this completely off-the-wall reply!? The only stones necessary to call evolution a religion would have to be in your head.
dk: You said, “That mutations can occur at all is predicted and indeed necessary for evolution, but is not in any way accounted for by intelligent design or creation.”, as an argument to prove religion wrong, or inferior to science. The argument is metaphysical. Science obviously can’t [dis]prove [g]God[s][ess][es]. But the argument does have interesting implication, worth exploring.[*]dk: [Religion} fails at what? Seems to be they are interlocked. How exactly does science or religion succeed according to theory of evolution?
lpetrich:
Religion fails because it is not predictive or verifiable; it does not allow us to manipulate the world, discover antibiotics, or fly to the moon, whereas religion does.
Creation does not predict the similarities between monkey and human DNA, nor does it predict pesticide resistance developing in insects nor the fossil record, but evolution does.
dk: I agree, creationism is not a science, but since human evolution claims to be random and directionless, it fails before it even begins. Let me try to explain myself (explain not argue). If I mix up a batch of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur, the properties of H, O, and S tell me absolutely nothing about sulfuric acid. Analogously, whatever people were 6 million years ago, they are something else today, and evolution makes no comment, anymore than the properties of H, S, and O comment upon the nature of Sulfuric Acid. I’m distinguishing between genetics and evolution, genetics does have something to say about the nature of human beings, just like chemistry has something to say about the nature of acids, bases, metals, noble gases etc.... Its biologists, environmentalists, economists, philosophers, sociologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, physicists, social activists etc... that use evolution for a foot stool, not Christians or religion. Unless evolutionists get their act together the science is hopeless, in my opinion.[*]dk: Religious liberty has nothing to do with science
lpetrich:...so keep religion out of the science classroom.
dk: If you recall positivists under a banner of “evolution” built the impenetrable wall around religion, virtually banning religious speech from the arts, history, ethics, morals and law. A true evolutionists would have recognized the folly, and stood up for religious liberty, free speech to differentiate evolutionary science from religion. People are irrationally angry because they see three things, 1) culture degenerating before their eyes, Mozart to Gangster Rape 2) millions of people detached and depressed and addicted to happy pills 3) the crisis in education. Surely being a farsighted evolutionist you’ve put some thought into this.[*]I’ll quit here the rest is rehash or rehash.[/list=a]

Dr Rick

...since creation claims to be godless and pointless...

How can you believe something that you know so little about?

Rick

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

dk

I agree the Pope benefited from evolution. Do you think Parkinson can be attributed to evolution.

Non-praying Mantis

Well, you are right about one thing: the whole process of evolution not being random.

Evolution is not random. Natural selection only allows those organisms that produce offspring to pass on their genes, and when they do, their genes become more prevalent in the gene pool. Organisms with beneficial mutations or beneficial genes produce more offspring than those that have hindering mutations or genes.

Only the particular mutations are random. Natural selection is NOT random.

NPM

scigirl

Cool sciteach! Always keep learning - and questioning. Good luck learning biology-ask if you have any questions.

scigirl

DMB

As far as I am aware, it is creationists who like to make a distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Drawing lines is a distinctly human activity that doesn't map all that well onto the biological world. The whole concept of a species is a device invented by humans to make sense of the living world. It is quite clear that lions and goats are different species, but classifications are always being reassessed when it comes to more closely related species.

Dawkins quotes an occasion when he was giving a talk about evolution. One member of the audience, a lawyer, insisted that if humans had evolved from apes there must have been a mother-and-child pair at some point where the mother was an ape while the child was human. This sort of argument simply tells us more about the human desire to draw lines than about the realities of human evolution.

lpetrich

So evolution is, in a sense, "everything"? That's extremely, extremely dumb.

Or perhaps you have not been looking too hard.

Are you claiming that Darwin and Mendel had done their work at the same time? Also, Mendel's work may have been difficult for his colleagues to appreciate -- and it may have seemed like some quirk of pea plants. It was only when de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak independently discovered his laws of heredity that his work seemed like something more than a curiosity.

By comparison, Darwin's work was Mendel, de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak wrapped up in one -- he discussed evolution as it related to a great variety of species, and not just the famous Galapagos finches.

And evolutionary biology has had genetics as an important part of it for at least half a century -- ever heard of the "Modern Synthesis"?

The emergence of MDR microbes was EXACTLY what Darwin had had in mind by that title -- the "favored races" are, in this case, strains of microbes that can survive multiple attempts to poison them. O dk, get off of your political-ideology hobbyhorse and try to think like a scientist.

It's the GENE that's selfish, not some temporary container of that gene.

O dk, be reasonable. Did you understand the relevance of those examples of kin-selected altruism in action?

In what comes next, dk credited me for someone else's statements.

Except that "natural laws" are more-or-less "absolute and universal".

Except that natural selection is NOT random. O dk, if the Pope himself explained that to you, would you accept that natural selection is a nonrandom process?

However, one could work out the properties of H2SO4 using quantum-chemistry software, though one will need a large number of computer cycles for that.

Again, tell us, what does that have to do with evolution?

And what, exactly, does that have to do with evolution?

I suggest that this thread be moved to Rants, Raves, and Preachings, since dk shows no comprehension of what evolutionary biology is all about.

I try to explain kin selection to him and how it produces altruism, and he acts like he would not care even if the Pope himself explained it to him.

Clutch

dk, LOL, there it is again. Did you hear someone say "positivism" once on NPR, and liked the sound of it?

When you don't understand words, son, don't use 'em.