Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nowhere357 · 05-11-2003, 12:15 PM

At the Theology Web, I got involved in a depressing thread ("Big page o' skeptical straw man arguments" - Religion 101) by taking my stab at a series of "questions". I really should quit posting at 3am - my judgement seems to be off.

Here are the questions and my replies:

Quote:

Evangel:
-show me evolution occuring right now.
-show me a single celled organism "evolving" into a multicelled organism.
-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates.

God in the gaps? Evolution theory is not a scientific fact, but it is sound and powerful theory based on actual evidence. Lots of it, verifiable, and available to all.

Quote:

-Unless humans were a huge anomaly in evolution it would seem to be that the rest of the creatures of the planet would have evolved at a similar rate and would have a much larger brain capacity then what they do. If you say they have as much brain power as they need then i could still say then why did humans evolve from apes if they had everything they needed. because they wanted to be smarter?
-Why didnt creatures in the same area evolve differently? if one was best suited wouldn't it kill out the rest or the rest would evolve to be similar to it.

Mutation occurs randomly. This answers the "similar rate" and "same area" questions. There is no reason to assume that things should evolve at the same rate, or evolve identical to neighbors.

Quote:

-show me conclusive scientific evidence that shows life coming from nothing.
-explain to me how abiogenesis and the goop can occur and show me examples of its existence today.

There is no conclusive scientific evidence for the origin of life.

Abiogenesis is based on - but separate from - evolution theory.
I too would like to see a summary of the current evidence.

Quote:

-If we were to evolve the capability to breathe would our brains be able to evolve the capacity to regulate it at the same time. seems like a stretch to assume that the organ and the mental ability to control it would evolve at the same time.
-It seems unlikely to me that if an organism were to evolve from asexual into mating that it would find another organism like it with the same mutation and that its partner would have the right organ. The two might not even be compatable if the evolution speciezed them. besides that the organism would have a limited time to find a partner before it ceased to exist.

Mental ability emerges from the organism. How could they NOT evolve together?

Species exist which change sex due to environment. Why should micro-organisms find it difficult?

Quote:

-What about irreducably complex organisms?

Is there such a thing?

I also made the claim that "Science is based on repeatability, which allows all of us access to scientific findings." And supported it with:

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 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.

As step four shows, repeatability is integral to the scientific method.

Here's what came back, and my replies:

Quote:

But step 4 is not integral to the scientific method. The first 3 steps are the important ones (observe, hypothesise, predict). The only reason for performing experiments is to generate new observations (step 1) - ie, to generate more data for steps 2 and 3. So long as we get new observations somehow, the scientific method still works - it doesn't much matter how those observations come about.

There are two different types of observation:
1. Those that we generate deliberately as part of an experiment.
2. Those that we stumble across accidentally.

Both lab sciences and a historical sciences make use of observations of the second type. However, the repeatability associated with lab sciences makes it much easier to set up experiments. Hence, it is much easier to generate additional observations of the first type. As a result, laboratory sciences tend to be dominated by observations of the first type, whereas historical sciences must make do with observations of the second type and consequently have less observations to work with. This makes historical sciences less precise and less certain (and more frustrating!) than lab sciences - however, they are sciences nonetheless, and they employ the scientific method.

Just to prove I am not making this up, here is a quote (from http://phyun5.ucr.edu/%7Ewudka/Phys..._www/node6.html:

"When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws."

The same can be said of historical sciences like archaeology and evolution.

Agreed. I fail to see why this invalidates step 4, however. Give me some time to study the links you provided.

(I also said that "The big bang is not a scientific fact. And our theories of the big bang are based on findings from using the scientific method - which involves repeatability.")

Quote:

The second statement I will grant you.
The first statement, however, is unconventional. I hesistate to say wrong, because by the definition of science that you are using, this is a correct deduction (for which I admire your consistency). However, I submit that your definition of science is unconventional, and hence this conclusion is unconventional.

sci�ence
noun
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

I believe I've been using 3a and 3b, so I reject the charge of unconventional usage.

Quote:

Most physicists would argue that the Big Bang is a scientific fact (see http://www.counterbalance.net/cqdem...index-body.html). The problem is (as I described earlier), that your definition of science precludes any historical science as being a true science (cosmology, evolution, forensics, archaeology, etc). Most scientists in these fields would disagree with you. Thus your definition of science is unconventional.

Again, give me time to look at the link. Currently, my view is that as we approach the singularity, the laws of physics began to change. I don't see how we can claim to know for a fact what is occuring there.

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

If you've slogged through all this, thank you. Here are my questions:

1) Have I made any glaring errors?
2) Is step 4 of the scientific method always valid?
3) Have my definitions invalidated "historical" science?
4) Is the big bang considered scientific fact?
5) Any opinions on the sites listed?

It's clear I'm in over my head. All help and support appreciated.

PS: I'm comfortable with studying and reaching conclusions on my own. I am also comfortable with asking for help - I figure this is just part of doing research.

Also, a summary of abiogenesis findings would be sweet.

Wyz_sub10 · 05-12-2003, 06:38 AM

I would only add that his first question:

Quote:

-show me evolution occuring right now

Can be easily answered after a short trip to Talk Origins

As for this question:

Quote:

-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates

You might first want to determine what, exactly, he means. It's easier to ask questions than to give answers. He could ask you 100 questions in the time it takes you to answer 2. But I'll wager that he does not really understand his own question.

Don't let him get off easy, especially if he is parroting crap he's read on creationist sites. What does he define as a "transitional species"?

Questions like this one:

Quote:

If we were to evolve the capability to breathe would our brains be able to evolve the capacity to regulate it at the same time. seems like a stretch to assume that the organ and the mental ability to control it would evolve at the same time.

seem to indicate that he is playing parrot and does not really understand the issue.

Ask him to explain how "automatic breathing" works in humans, just so you are on the same page.

I could bombard a physicist with QM questions all day, doesn't mean I'd understand the answers even if I heard them.

Principia · 05-12-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Evangel:
-show me evolution occuring right now.
-show me a single celled organism "evolving" into a multicelled organism.
-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates.

Show me the Judaeo-Christian God creating everything or anything. As for the rest, just go with talkorigins FAQs I guess.

Quote:

-Unless humans were a huge anomaly in evolution it would seem to be that the rest of the creatures of the planet would have evolved at a similar rate and would have a much larger brain capacity then what they do. If you say they have as much brain power as they need then i could still say then why did humans evolve from apes if they had everything they needed. because they wanted to be smarter?

Need is a goal-oriented concept, which evolutionary theory does not require. Humans evolved from apes -- that is about all that science can tell us. That they are smarter than apes (by some objective criteria, to be sure) is a selectable advantage.

Quote:

-show me conclusive scientific evidence that shows life coming from nothing.
-explain to me how abiogenesis and the goop can occur and show me examples of its existence today.

Show me conclusive evidence that God created all of life and its diversity. Show me conclusive evidence of God's existence today.

Quote:

-If we were to evolve the capability to breathe would our brains be able to evolve the capacity to regulate it at the same time. seems like a stretch to assume that the organ and the mental ability to control it would evolve at the same time.

Breathing is not at all a completely voluntary act so requiring "mental ability" is an interesting twist on the notion of mental. Try holding your breath indefinitely. But muscles and neurons do excite on their own -- your heart for instance is autorhythmic. Anyway, the function of respiration can be implemented in multiple ways. Plants "breathe." Passive exchange of oxygen occurs in many basic life-forms. So it is not too much of a stretch at all to see respiratory structures exist in the absence of neuronal control.

Quote:

-It seems unlikely to me that if an organism were to evolve from asexual into mating that it would find another organism like it with the same mutation and that its partner would have the right organ. The two might not even be compatable if the evolution speciezed them. besides that the organism would have a limited time to find a partner before it ceased to exist.

Argument from incredulity and ignorance. Evolution of sex is a fertile (pardon the pun) area of research, last I checked.

Quote:

-What about irreducably complex organisms?

Define irreducibly complex. Not even Behe could settle on one definition. Advice: don't go down this road wrt a definitions game.

PS: Here's a general tip wrt to "show me" commands -- reflect the request back at them. Science has been demonstrated to be the most effective mechanism towards discovering the natural world, and if science can't tell us how it is done "conclusively," then chances are that no other methodology can either. Ask your inquisitors how they would go about researching what they ask you to show.

Wyz_sub10 · 05-12-2003, 07:42 AM

The only reservation I have with the "show me god", "prove god" approach is that your opponent may gleefully concede that his "facts" are based on faith.

The last thing you want is to draw a comparison between science and religion, and make it seem that evolution is based on faith or is in the same ballpark as religion.

Principia · 05-12-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
The only reservation I have with the "show me god", "prove god" approach is that your opponent may gleefully concede that his "facts" are based on faith.

The last thing you want is to draw a comparison between science and religion, and make it seem that evolution is based on faith or is in the same ballpark as religion.

Good point, Wyz. But we have to be honest, as scientists, that there are certain questions that may be outside of our reach to answer or that we currently have no answers to. The best way to demontrate the absurdity of "Show me scientific evidence X" when X is either tentative or nonexistent, is to illustrate with "Show me evidence, Y" where Y is equally nonexistent.

An opponent's faith requires no evidence, but science does. From my POV, he is only admitting that God is not scientific.

ps418 · 05-12-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates.

I give several examples of morphological series in microfossils and an example in Ammonoids at:

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sle.htm

Patrick

ps418 · 05-12-2003, 08:04 AM

Also, check out Clifford Cuffey's article The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation", particularly section 4:

Quote:

Consider the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Lower Silurian of Great Britain (Ziegler, 1966). We find two species both classified as Eocoelia based on the details of internal morphology. However, the shells of the older species are coarsely ribbed whereas the shells of the younger species are smooth (Ziegler, 1966). If we examine samples collected from geochronologically intermediate positions, we find a succession of Eocoelia that progressively reduced and ultimately lost the ribs (Ziegler, 1966). This morphologic progression can be illustrated both qualitatively with specimen illustrations and quantitatively by measuring rib strength and plotting the data as a series of histograms in stratigraphic order (Ziegler, 1966). Such sequences are the preserved remains of temporally successive populations of organisms that morphologically changed from one species into another. All of these intermediate forms thus qualifies as transitional fossils. The only logical conclusion is that such successive populations were produced by normal reproductive processes. That is descent with modification (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266-269).

Examination and collection of the rock and fossil record (either outcrops or subsurface cores) naturally produces many such stratigraphically, superpositionally, and hence geochronologically successive samples that show gradual and continuous morphologic change from older species into younger species (Cuffey, 1984). Numerous examples of such transitional individuals, consisting of sample by sample intermediate forms, completely documenting morphologic change between species (in some cases connecting more than one higher taxon) exist among protists, several invertebrate phyla, and vertebrates, especially mammals including hominids (Cuffey, 1984, p. 258, 259). Additional research has provided many other examples of transitional individuals in protists (Lazarus, 1983, 1986; Malmgren, Berggren, & Lohmann, 1983, 1984; Arnold, 1983), bryozoans (Cuffey, 1999), brachiopods (Hurst, 1975), conodonts (Barnett, 1972), mammals (Rose & Bown, 1984; Bookstein, Gingerich, & Kluge, 1978; Gingerich & Simons , 1977; Gingerich & Gunnell, 1979; Chaline & Laurin, 1986; Clyde & Gingerich, 1994; Gingerich, 1974, 1976a, 1980, 1985), and hominids (Cronin et al., 1981; Wolpoff, 1984).

. . . .

In other cases, geochronologic successions of species or genera (in some cases families) exist that document the morphologic change between an older taxon and a younger taxon in several invertebrate phyla and vertebrates (Cuffey, 198 4, p. 259-262). Some good examples can be found among brachiopods (McNamara, 1984), molluscs (Newell, 1942; Erben, 1966; Hallam, 1968, 1982; Spinosa, Furnish, & Glenister, 1975; Ward & Blackwelder, 1975), trilobites (Palmer, 1965; Lesperance, 1975 ), conodonts (Behnken, 1975), and mammals (Gingerich, 1976b). The morphologic differences between the successive species and genera are no greater than that bridged by transitional individuals in more completely studied successions. The logical extrapolation is that we would find a continuous succession of transitional individuals between these successive species or genera, if we had enough specimens to do such a study.

Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).

Consult the article for the respective refs.

Patrick

BioBeing · 05-12-2003, 09:38 AM

Quote:

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 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.

As step four shows, repeatability is integral to the scientific method.

I would concede to him that you do not need step 4. Basically, it is just an extension of step 3 anyway (predicting new observations or the outcome of new experimental tests). While it is certainly nice to have independent verification --- and it certainly increases the amount of trust that one may place in a theory --- it is not absolutely required. Plus, gracefully conceding this does not reduce your position in anyway.

Quote:

show me a single celled organism "evolving" into a multicelled organism.

Someone posited a short while ago in another thread that this particluar step may be the "rate-limiting" one in evolution. Basically - single celled life took off fairly early, but it was then billions of years before multicelled organisms appeared. He went on to suggest that single celled life may be abundant in the universe, but that multi-celled life may be exccedingly rare. (If the search was working, I could look it up...). My point however, is just because it happened once, doesn't mean it is happening all the time. Bacteria are not constantly forming new multi-celled organisms any more than humans are constantly evolving into new species. The bacteria/yeast etc that are around now are pretty well adapted, on the whole to their niche and so there is no pressure for them to become multicelled. Also, the multi-celled niches may be full already, and might out-compete any new species formed in this way anyway.

I would agree with the other posters that you need to pin this guy down. What does he mean by [quote-What about irreducably complex organisms?[/quote]. Make him give a specific organism, then shoot it down. (Come back here if you need more help!

)

Have fun!

ps418 · 05-12-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

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

As step four shows, repeatability is integral to the scientific method.

Every time new genetic material is sequenced and every time a paleontologist puts hammer to rock it is an independent test. Also, evolutionary hypotheses can be and are tested using entirely different methods, as illustrated for example by the concordance of phylogenies derived from analyses of morphological and genetic data.

Patrick

BioBeing · 05-12-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

It seems unlikely to me that if an organism were to evolve from asexual into mating that it would find another organism like it with the same mutation and that its partner would have the right organ. The two might not even be compatable if the evolution speciezed them. besides that the organism would have a limited time to find a partner before it ceased to exist.

General concept here is that evolution works on populations, not individuals. A group of individuals, (usually) geographically isolated from other initially similar individuals accumulate small changes, which, over time, results in the two populations being incompatible (i.e. different species). Thus, there is no "first" individual of any given species.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2003, 07:42 AM	#4
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	The only reservation I have with the "show me god", "prove god" approach is that your opponent may gleefully concede that his "facts" are based on faith. The last thing you want is to draw a comparison between science and religion, and make it seem that evolution is based on faith or is in the same ballpark as religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.