No time for Evolution?

a reply to: GetHyped

I have to play devil's advocate here if you would be up for playing along...

What accurate predictions does evolution make? We can't predict what species will come from what, or some new form or function.

Will we be able to continue producing viable antibiotics?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

As has already been pointed out .... by being able to make predictions. Guess what, we can do that. Also guess what? Creationism can't.

Again making the claim that evolution just has to include how life began to be an adequate theory ... needs to be proven. The onus is on the maker of the claim. You want to change evolutionary theory .... prove it.

originally posted by: Noinden

Again making the claim that evolution just has to include how life began to be an adequate theory ... needs to be proven. The onus is on the maker of the claim. You want to change evolutionary theory .... prove it.

Oh sure, but I haven't made that claim though ( I don't think)

What predictions does evolution make? That life changes based on environment?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You are indeed arguing the side that says it has to be included, because (and here is the bit that matters) you are questioning why I say it does not.

What has evolution predicted?

Ok

(a)That all life on earth is linked through a chain of ancestry-descent, and evolutionary theory can predict that if a new species is to arise. Once we discovered what DNA did, it became easier, once we were able to "quickly" (that speed is subjective, the old Sanger Sequencers did a lot of donkey work, the next gen and beyond machines are much better) sequence genomes, it is evident . You simply need to write a program in R and you can construct a phylogenetic tree.
(b) Speaking of phylogenetic tree's? Oh and about "time for evolution" WE can calculate and observe the rate of mutation in a "statistically meaningful" manner. I say "statistically meaningful" as the correlations are complex. A pure statistician needs to lower expectatiosn a few %, but its still good. I did a dissertation on finding Synthetic leathals (google it) for BRCA 1 and 2 breast cancer a few years back when I upskilled some Bioinformatics into my resume. I was getting 90% correlations. Which is better than the "shot gun" approach we had prior to this where we just tried chemicals and hoped it killed cancer faster than the patient.
(c)Eolution also predicts the idea of change in frequencies of inherited characters through generations, and based on that prediction, there are experiments corroborating evolution. Google the Lynch long-term evolution experiment.


There is a start.

How prey tell would knowing how life started help again?

a reply to: Noinden

Not quite. I have not said it has to be included. I am asking why there is such vehement denial that it must be kept separate. You're saying it's because we already know all we need to know. I wonder about that.

Ill read over your other part and will respond in kind

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Noinden

I am asking why there is such vehement denial that it must be kept separate.

Because it's a moot point as evolution works on the assumption that there's genetic information to be mutated and selected in the first place. How life arose and how genes came to be doesn't affect the mechanics of evolution as we currently understand it. It's used as a wedge by anti-science types to cast doubt on evolution by implying that as we don't currently know how life arose, somehow that means evolution is wrong (???).

For example, the question that neoholographic has persistently avoided:

a) the first primitive life arose from non-life
b) the first primitive life was created by a god of your choice

What difference does a) or b) have on genetic changes being sorted by natural selection as being the cornerstone of evolution?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You questioned why it is not. You also did not read what my answers and others have said.

With out proof, you don't have to include everything. Do we include gravitational theory? Electomagnetism? Kinetics? Thermodynamics? I know, SN1 and SN2 mechanics? That makes sense at least its chemistry.

You also have a reading comprehension fail in what I've said about "we know everything". I've repeatedly said "Science will reevaluate any theory based on new evidence" and "Science is never 100% certain".

You mistake "show the proof" for "we know it all". Science is based on observations. Not what people vote in. That would be the Christian Bible, where they voted on the books to include. All science is valid, until its not, based on the evidence.

So I wonder about your agenda, but I with hold judgement.

a reply to: GetHyped

I think people miss its not "vehement denial, that it must be kept separate". It is refusal to bow to the "oh its not logical with out this" crowd from creationists. Creationists don't get to decide what is logical or not. Their ideas are not based on logic (eidien) their ideas are based upon gut feeling (gnosis). You can't prove or disprove gut feeling. You can't even measure it. I mean what units do we use? Jumping Jesus'? (google it folks)

So people can believe what they like, and should (assuming it causes no harm to others). But Just as science can not stomp into the vatican and demand that the Pope tells god to sort his sh*t out, because the bible did not put any units on anything. Religion can't stomp into a University, or say a High School, and demand we don't teach evolution, until we "fix it"...oh wait Religion has done this in certain US states in the past, and the world mocked.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Because it's a moot point as evolution works on the assumption that there's genetic information to be mutated and selected in the first place.

You've reduced our understanding of evolution to mutation and natural selection. Evolution can not ONLY be explained in these terms. But I get the rest of your argument about the wedge, although I see that as one rooted in ideology, not science.

originally posted by: GetHypedWhat difference does a) or b) have on genetic changes being sorted by natural selection as being the cornerstone of evolution?

a) does not equate to b) as far as advancing our understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms which govern genetic change. But your reasoning for it like Noinden's is clear, although not necessarily scientific in my opinion

a reply to: PhotonEffect

(Biological) Evolution is indeed mutation. How do you understand it? No seriously get off that fence and talk about your understanding.

Also show how either of our reasoning are not scientific? Go for it. Make sure you quote me accurately and precisely however neighbor. I would not want to fact check you again

a reply to: Noinden

Ive read everyone of your answers and have tried to respond in kind as best I could. Have I dodged anyone??

Im not saying it HAS to be included or that ToE is wrong without it. Please quote me on where I said that. If I did it was definitely not my intention to convey such an idea. I'm asking for the scientific reasoning behind the separation, not the idealogical reason. You haven't given a scientific answer as far as I can tell, other than to say we know enough about evolution that OOL does not need to be considered. Well not every scientist agrees, so what you say them? I am actually for extending evolutionary theory to include some aspects of OOL, or vice versa, and actually trying to bridge this gap that exists. Just because I question you doesn't make me a creationist sympathiser or what have you. You keep trying to imply that. You credentials considered, I simply don't agree with some of your blanket speak for all statements.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

The scientific reason for the separation is that there is no proof that it needs to be included (I've said this how many times now?). Our understanding with out it, is increasing with every genome sequenced, every fossil found.

There is a reason we have a theory of evolution and hypotheses for the start of life. Protegenesis is not measurable, unless you have a time ship or a TARDIS that is?

Gravitational theory is still poorly understood, yet I don't see people clamoring to insist that the Big Bang be included in that. about that. Hell people celebrated the first observation of gravitational waves.

Why is this a problem for you? As I said, I question your reasons.

a reply to: Noinden

And YET another definition for evolution!

And fact check my all you want Dr D. Please do, it keep me on my toes. Remember, I actually read the links people post here, which should serve as an indication that I read the links I post too. Which I know you haven't read. You can start by fact checking those if you'd like and the one you posted to while you're at it

Oh and your predictions, don't really seem like predictions. Although your work on BRCA 1 and 2 is admirable and sounds very interesting. I will try to find the write up about it online. I'm going re-read your predictions to be sure I've understood them as such.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: GetHyped
Because it's a moot point as evolution works on the assumption that there's genetic information to be mutated and selected in the first place.

You've reduced our understanding of evolution to mutation and natural selection. Evolution can not ONLY be explained in these terms. But I get the rest of your argument about the wedge, although I see that as one rooted in ideology, not science.

Then you need to posit why the origins of life is such a sticking point for MES. Saying that it's necessary for evolution to exist is like saying that the existence of plate tectonics is necessary for plate tectonic theory to exist. Well... yeah, that's self-evident, and stating it so doesn't really bring anything meaningful to the table.

a) does not equate to b) as far as advancing our understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms which govern genetic change. But your reasoning for it like Noinden's is clear, although not necessarily scientific in my opinion

But what difference does a) or b) make? And why do creationists try and use it as a tool to cast doubt on evolution?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It is not a different definition it is a less granular one neighbor. If you don't understand granular, think of it like a microscope (or telescope). You look from a distance, and you get the overall picture. You focus in, and you see the cause(s) of it. When Darwin postulated his theory of evolution, he and humanity did not know the mechanism of hereditary information being transferred. With DNA we now do. Similarly Newton had no idea about Gravity, but saw it's effects.

Go on, show how the predictions I listed are not predictions. Again all you can say is "they don't really seem like predictions". If you can not say how, you have no credibility.

originally posted by: Noinden
The scientific reason for the separation is that there is no proof that it needs to be included (I've said this how many times now?). Our understanding with out it, is increasing with every genome sequenced, every fossil found.

"There is no proof" is not a scientific reason, for obvious reasons

And sure maybe we are learning more with every genome sequenced, and maybe we're learning more about what we don't actually know. Only time will tell with that of course.

originally posted by: Noinden
Gravitational theory is still poorly understood, yet I don't see people clamoring to insist that the Big Bang be included in that. about that. Hell people celebrated the first observation of gravitational waves.

I get the point but generally they'll just say that inflation accounts for gravity being there.

originally posted by: Noinden
Why is this a problem for you? As I said, I question your reasons.

Because life, which is not even clearly defined, is said by ToE that it descends from a universal ancestor. Okay fine. The question is then how did this thing arrive on the scene. What was the genome like? How the hell am I related to corn?

Why should the idea that evolution played a role in its development be so wrong to consider? Why is this a problem for you I should ask. I question your reasons too

a reply to: Noinden

Evolution is mutation. Well that is grand isn't it.
And yes, I will be back to pick apart your predictions. So don;t edit them

Oh and maybe you can post some links to back up your claims for once. You know, that whole fact checking thing.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

No there is no proof is a valid scientific reason. You can't randomly decide something has to be in there, and find the evidence. That would be deciding the outcome before you knew the answer. That is unscientific.

Now as for gravity? Who knows? If they discover a particle, then its that. If they don't ? Well that is for Physicists to worry about. It does not effect evolution, or genetics OR should we include that just incase??

This Universal ancestor, is where evolution starts. By definition. That is logic.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

When exactly have I edited a post after someone as replied to them? Either post proof of that, or recant that statement.

I've posted links to all of those claims in other posts I've made over the years.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Here you go. Hope you have access to academic journals and texts?

(a) Mount, D.M. (2004). Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY. ISBN 0-87969-608-7.
(b) Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L.B. (1962). "Molecular disease, evolution, and genic heterogeneity". In Kasha, M. and Pullman, B (editors). Horizons in Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York. pp. 189–225.
(c)myxo.css.msu.edu...

Off you go.