Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
LA Times Calendar Live.com ^ | September 18, 2005 | James D. Watson

Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored

Edited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last
To: SeaLion

" My view of the liberal agenda leads me to believe that we already have 'humans with mouse brains.'"

That's an insult to mice everywhere.


101 posted on 09/19/2005 9:21:31 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: rabair

I hope you haven't given either of those huckster sites too much of your money.

If you want to know about evolution can I suggest that you get a scientific education. Only someone without one can fall prey to the deceitful nonsense on CreationSafaris, AiG, ICR, or DrDino. It is all designed specifically to appeal to people who don't really understand science, and to place money in the pockets of the site owners.

Those sites would have us reject not just modern biology, but atomic physics, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, geography, cosmology, and geology. (and I've probably missed some ologys out.) Essentially if AiG is right then most science for the last 150 years is wrong and must be thrown away. To contend that this is likely on an internet discussion forum (which only works because of our modern scientific understanding) is beyond parody.

If you want to find out what happens when a dedicated creationist with scientific training who writes papers for AiG comes up against the real scientific data try googling on "Glenn Morton's Story".


102 posted on 09/19/2005 9:23:12 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Re. Glenn Morton's Story For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective

That would be a pretty boring story though. Everyone knows the ending.

103 posted on 09/19/2005 9:30:13 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; RadioAstronomer
Contrast the range of applicability of Newton's inverse square law of gravity with Einstein's general relativistic theory of gravity. You can send a rocket around the moon and back using Newton's law and not be off by much; but if you want to understand what happens around a neutron star or a black hole, say, Einstein's theory is essential.

I agree with your general point absolutely. But I was very interested to discover (from Radio Astronomer the Freeper) that Newton is *not* enough for piloting rockets to Mars. He does this for a living. Use Newton and he'll miss his orbit. You've got to use Einsteinian mechanics to travel that distance.

Also GPS devices operate according to Einsteinian physics, or your location would be off by a few metres.

104 posted on 09/19/2005 9:33:25 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Only someone without one can fall prey to the deceitful nonsense on CreationSafaris, AiG, ICR, or DrDino.

DrDino is my personal favorite. Unlike other people who take that sort of stuff on the road, he's actually not a comedian.

Speaking of good creationist comedy, here's my personal favorite from AiG that I like to post once in a rare while:

I have to admit I feel a little guilty doing this (not for giving AiG a hard time but for giving them another tally on their site's hit counter).

105 posted on 09/19/2005 9:35:56 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like

Funny. Einstein needed to call a reference body something in his special theory and so used a train. For the general theory the train wouldn't do, because it wasn't sufficiently deformable, so he used a mollusk.

106 posted on 09/19/2005 9:39:10 AM PDT by RightWhale (We in heep dip trubble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
What exactly is macro-evolution, and how does it differ from micro-evolution?
107 posted on 09/19/2005 9:39:33 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
Let them keep working on intelligent design. If they come up with something indisputable and provable then it will come to be accepted and the more hysterical Darwinists will be the ridiculed ones.

They'll have to *start* working on it before they can *keep* working on it. As of now I've not yet seen any evidence of work on a theory of intelligent design. They don't construct any experiments that might disprove it. They don't come up with any useful predictions. Zip, zilch, nada. All they try to do is end-run round the scientific process to get their hypothesis into the classroom.

The day they start doing some science I'll be the first to applaud them.

108 posted on 09/19/2005 9:40:18 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"Interesting. And just where in the world did the complicated code come from? Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?"

Step wise additions to previous code.

109 posted on 09/19/2005 9:45:00 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Good points. I knew that the GPS system used General Relativity, but, if you'd asked me, I probably would've said that Newton might be able to get you to Mars and back (with more error than a moon trip, of course). I'll trust RadioAstronomer on that.

One of the great successes of General Relativity was its accounting for the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, a phenomenon that Newton's theory couldn't account for:


110 posted on 09/19/2005 9:48:38 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Whose law is it that "not everything that happens happens as a result of some conscious, directing agency".[emphasis mine]

I think you missed the point.

111 posted on 09/19/2005 9:49:25 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
That's an insult to mice everywhere

You might be right, but before I am willing to yield on this point, I propose a controlled scientific experiment, viz:

Let's test liberals in a large, T-shaped Skinner maze. The right fork is labelled, "Get the Facts," and leads to a chocolate bar. The left fork is labelled, "Blame Bush", and taking it leads to a nasty electric shock.

So: the prediction from your hypothesis (that mice are smarter than liberals) is, the liberal will keep turning left no matter how many times he gets a shock?

Golly, I hope you are right!

112 posted on 09/19/2005 9:50:18 AM PDT by SeaLion ("Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man" -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
experts on birds, beetles, mollusks and the like

Funny. Einstein needed to call a reference body something in his special theory and so used a train. For the general theory the train wouldn't do, because it wasn't sufficiently deformable, so he used a mollusk.

(laughing)

113 posted on 09/19/2005 9:50:54 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest.

Of all the things I've read on these threads, this is the funniest. Darwin causes human inequality and inequality causes welfare. The Onion couldn't do better.

114 posted on 09/19/2005 9:54:00 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rabair

Neither of the sites linked to have a good grasp of science and much of what they spew has been debunked by scientists many times.


115 posted on 09/19/2005 9:54:22 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
Puting man under the yoke of evolution is basicaly an exercise in castration.

Onion writers are out in force today. Who makes this stuff up?

116 posted on 09/19/2005 9:56:57 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"Then why do even very simple forms of life such as viruses and bacteria use the same complex code? Shouldn't there be some earlier, simpler forms of the code still extant?"

After 3.5 billion years? Why would they?

117 posted on 09/19/2005 9:57:03 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
What exactly is macro-evolution, and how does it differ from micro-evolution?

Let me clarify, and please allow me to step away from "macro" and "micro" since those terms may have baggage.

In a lot of discussions about ToE, someone will bring up an experiment in which a population of fruit flies was created to all have a specific trait. The starting population did not have that trait, but the current population certainly does. Voila! Evolution confirmed in the lab!

I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).

The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.

But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.

Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.

118 posted on 09/19/2005 9:57:48 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
By the way, I know you weren't kidding! It just struck me as funny that you mentioned it here. Here's the passage where he introduces the idea:

For this reason non-rigid reference-bodies are used which are as a whole not only moving in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference-body. These clocks satisfy only the one condition, that the “readings” which are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non-rigid reference-body, which might appropriately be termed a “reference-mollusk,” is in the main equivalent to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system chosen arbitrarily. That which gives the “mollusk” a certain comprehensibleness as compared with the Gauss co-ordinate system is the (really unqualified) formal retention of the separate existence of the space co-ordinate. Every point on the mollusk is treated as a space-point, and every material point which is at rest relatively to it as at rest, so long as the mollusk is considered as reference-body. The general principle of relativity requires that all these mollusks can be used as reference-bodies with equal right and equal success in the formulation of the general laws of nature; the laws themselves must be quite independent of the choice of mollusk.

119 posted on 09/19/2005 9:59:15 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
(and I've probably missed some ologys out.)

Trigonometry and set theory?

120 posted on 09/19/2005 10:01:00 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
The day they start doing some science I'll be the first to applaud them.

How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

121 posted on 09/19/2005 10:01:21 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.

Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.

That is true. "Controlled laboratory settings" are not the only way good data can be collected, though. No one has produced a hurricane or earthquake in a "controlled laboratory setting" either, but meteorological and geological theories depend upon their observation.

122 posted on 09/19/2005 10:03:55 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

Creation science has been around for hundreds of years without success. There are still flood geologists, people who believe a recent dinosaur fossil contained fresh red meat, dino+human footprints.

123 posted on 09/19/2005 10:05:14 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

The difficulty I have with taking natural selection seriously is that so many of those who argue against it do so out of motives that have nothing to do with the relative merits of the theory...likewise many who favor it.

Any time I try to read something substantive on natural selection I find myself wondering "Is this a real argument, or is the author merely defending his ideological turf?"

It's enough to make one take up basketweaving.


124 posted on 09/19/2005 10:05:28 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Why is substantiating ToE science but falsifying it not science? Or if falsifying is science too, maybe that's all the ID folks have to work with at this time that might be capable of producing something irrefutable. The problem is though that scientists tend to just ignore things that don't jibe with their prejudices or are embarrasing to their prejudices.


125 posted on 09/19/2005 10:10:57 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
"This bodes ill if we do not note the quantum like leaps of man from animals."

I'm so glad you acknowledge the infinitesimally small differences between Homo sapien and other animals.

126 posted on 09/19/2005 10:11:00 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
"Controlled laboratory settings" are not the only way good data can be collected, though. No one has produced a hurricane or earthquake in a "controlled laboratory setting" either, but meteorological and geological theories depend upon their observation.

Absolutely. But there's "observation" and then there's "observation".

Ask the people of New Orleans if a thing called a "hurricane" exists. It's not a theory. It's an observed fact. Laboratory setting not required.

"Evolution" is a little different. I find a fossil here. I find a fossil there. I find lots of fossils. By observing the location of these fossils, I build up a timeline and a series of logical conjectures about what took place over a time span of, perhaps, millions of years. It's observation.

But not quite as irrefutable as a hurricane knocking down your house.

127 posted on 09/19/2005 10:14:10 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"I don't know about this, seems as though the Nobel Prize is given to the adherents of the law of evolution. I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it, could it be to decree an unfitness, like maybe a weak mind, mental instability."

What happens when someone breaks any of the laws of physics?

128 posted on 09/19/2005 10:15:38 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But not quite as irrefutable as a hurricane knocking down your house.

The leaders of NOLA dismissed the need for planning and preparation, because hurricanes were just a theory.

129 posted on 09/19/2005 10:18:16 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The difficulty I have with taking natural selection seriously is that so many of those who argue against it do so out of motives that have nothing to do with the relative merits of the theory...

I started to say, well, it wouldn't make sense to dismiss natural selection simply because you question the motives of those who argue against it, but then you added

likewise many who favor it.

But you're correct to try to distinguish between ideological turf-defending, on the one hand, and the marshalling of evidence and argument in favor of (or against) natural selection, on the other hand. I'll confess that I don't often find it hard to distinguish between these two, since the turf-defender almost immediately tips his hand by resorting to ad hominem's or other shifty debater's tricks.

But, you know, everybody needs at least one good basket...

130 posted on 09/19/2005 10:19:23 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Problem is evolutionists set themselves above reproach and bring out their huge ignorant stick to any and all who disagree.

Problem is, most anti-evolutionists actually are ignorant on the issue.

And those that aren't ignorant have all the hallmarks of charlatans making a living off the ignorant anti-evolutionists.

It is a very good business after all. Lots of ignorant people out there are willing to give money to charlatans that give the veneer of respectability to their uninformed world view.

131 posted on 09/19/2005 10:19:39 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
What happens when someone breaks any of the laws of physics?

I wouldn't put it in the same league with a law of physics or else you could make some definite predictions about a population of eels (say) and what they will be in 2 million years. I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?

132 posted on 09/19/2005 10:21:35 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SeaLion

Who can break the law of gravity? Any attempt to break it invariably fails.


133 posted on 09/19/2005 10:22:45 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Has any evolutionist ever demonstrated macro-evolution under controlled circumstances? Of course not.

How can you verify a process that in nature takes many thousands of years?

Instead, you have to test a theory like evolution by formulating predictions based on the theory that can then be verified.

For example: Suppose you see two similar species, judged to be similar based on anatomical similarities and so forth. You hypothesize that they are closely related, that they have a recent common ancestor that they've both evolved from. How can you test this hypthesis? You reason, if they're that related, then when we examine certain genes, we'll find they too are similar. For example, mammalian species all contain the gene for hemoglobin. But often there are slight, inconsequential "spelling errors" in this gene and other genes, which differ from species to species. You may find your two closely-related species do indeed share most of the same spelling errors. This would greatly strengthen the assertion that species have common ancestors. And indeed, this type of observation has been made many, many times -- if you look at the genes, you will see that all species have common ancestors.

So the evidence is extremely strong that all species have a common ancestor and that this happened over hundreds of millions of years. The actual mechanism might still be under debate, on the fringes of modern biology. I myself believe in theistic evolution: God created a system of life that creates itself, with at most only an occasional nudge from the Creator to ensure that sentient life would result.

134 posted on 09/19/2005 10:25:14 AM PDT by megatherium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Of all the things I've read on these threads, this is the funniest. Darwin causes human inequality and inequality causes welfare. The Onion couldn't do better.

Another candidate for The List-O-Links, in the "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM" section.

135 posted on 09/19/2005 10:27:09 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"Evolution" is a little different. I find a fossil here. I find a fossil there. I find lots of fossils. By observing the location of these fossils, I build up a timeline and a series of logical conjectures about what took place over a time span of, perhaps, millions of years. It's observation.

I agree that evolution is more difficult to observe than other natural processes. Changes (including some that have caused speciation) have been observed directly in nature. No one has directly observed the change of an animal/plant/bacteria/etc. from one family or order to another, of course, this would never happen on an observable time scale.

Many of the more elaborate theories in science rely on indirect observation to formulate theories. Atomic theory is a good example. No one has "directly" observed an atom, only their effects. Even electron microscope "pictures" of atoms you may have seen have to undergo reconstruction using rules of quantum physics before a picture can be produced. The existence of atoms, though, produces testable physical consequences, as does the theory of evolution. Atoms are are removed from us by orders of magnitude of size, while huge evolutionary changes are removed from us by orders of magnitude in time.

The ToE stands strong because it stands up to the scrutiny of many unrelated lines of inquiry, and keeps fulfilling predictions, that's all it can claim to do (as does any scientific theory). There is no scientific alternative that succeeds in the manner that evolution does at explaining the natural origin of biodiversity. In plain speaking, it simply works and no one has found anything better to replace it.

136 posted on 09/19/2005 10:29:27 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Where's the science?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

So, just what is a scientific law?


137 posted on 09/19/2005 10:32:42 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Well you are partially correct here that evolution is man's work. Evolution does far more than describe how organic beings on earth have developed and are developing. Evolution, man's creation, elevates some men as being more equal than the rest of man. Thus the need for things like entitlement programs, cause not all are of the fittest.

What the heck are you talking about?

There is a difference between evolution, which is an observed part of nature, and the theory of evolution which is a human developed explanation for how the observed evolution works. If anything the theory of evolution shows the objective equality of arbitrary subgroups of humans.

138 posted on 09/19/2005 10:42:51 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Who can break the law of gravity?

Sorry, I didn't put in explicit [sarcasm] tags :-)

But I suppose the penalty for thinking you can break the law of gravity to forfeit one's rationality

139 posted on 09/19/2005 11:13:24 AM PDT by SeaLion ("Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man" -- Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Who established the boundaries and the parameters of what is called evolution???

Evolution does that on it's own - no "who" required.

140 posted on 09/19/2005 11:33:02 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JudgemAll
Strange thing is that Darwinists contradict themselves by being against things like "overpopulation" or means of being "fruitful and multiplying".

Arrogant overbroad generalization noted.
141 posted on 09/19/2005 11:34:07 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
How can you be sure that they haven't tried without success?

They should report their failures, or they aren't doing what I would call science. If in fact they've made predictions but those predictions don't work, or they've constructed falsifications and the falsifications end up contradicting their hypothesis they owe it to the rest of us to admit it. But I see no evidence of any of this from the IDers.

In fact all I see from the IDers is Paleys failed argument (after Aquinus) resurrected into modern scientific-seeming garb, and sniping at evolution's unsolved problems (lets face it, there are always going to be gaps). Real scientists are out there solving the problems. Like resolving the bloodclot cascade and the bacterial flagellum, not just shouting "God Did It!", and giving up.

142 posted on 09/19/2005 11:34:31 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
Did this complex molecule just pop into existence all by itself?

No. It took millions of years of evolution.

143 posted on 09/19/2005 11:35:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I want to know what their punishment is for breaking it

It's a nonsensical request. It's like asking what the punishment is for breaking the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. It's a classic case of a creationist equivocating "law" in scientific therminology with "law" in political discourse.
144 posted on 09/19/2005 11:36:37 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

It could just be a feeble joke on his part, I guess.


145 posted on 09/19/2005 11:37:53 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"In a lot of discussions about ToE, someone will bring up an experiment in which a population of fruit flies was created to all have a specific trait. The starting population did not have that trait, but the current population certainly does. Voila! Evolution confirmed in the lab!

What those experiments showed was not that a new species would result but that small changes in a gene can produce large changes in morphology. Because most morphological changes from small gene changes are imperceptible, they ended up creating larger genetic changes to enable them to observe larger saltative morphological changes. Although speciation is generally considered to be a cessation in gene flow between two groups, had the individual flies survived, we would have considered those with four wings instead of two to be a different species, simply based on morphology.

"I was merely trying to point out that a new specicies is not described in the above paragraph. The Origin of Species is not of great interest if it discusses red hair or blue eyes (allele variation within a population, I believe is the term).

"The real meat of ToE is when one species gives rise to a new species which can no longer interbreed with the original species. Ring species are of interest here.

The problem with these arguments is the difference between the creationist definition of a species and the scientific definition of species. A good working definition is the cessation of gene flow. This stoppage of gene flow does not necessarily have to be a physical inability to have fertile offspring but can be where two populations for some other reason, simply do not interbreed.

This is seen in a number of ring species where two subspecies share the same geographical region and could produce fertile offspring but do not interbreed. A good example of this is the Asian Greenish Warbler where the two subspecies farthest from the origin could genetically have fertile offspring but do not recognize each other as members of the same breeding group. Their markings and songs are just too different.

"But to reiterate the point I was trying to make. In a lab, a chemist can absolutely substantiate Avogadro's law. As often as you like. But a biologist cannot great a new species, and thereby substantiate ToE in a controlled laboratory setting.

If plants are considered (as they should be) speciation has occurred in the lab, more than once. PatrickHenry's 'List-O-Links' has some good links to examples of this.

"Substantiating ToE cannot be done in the same way as the laws of physics of chemistry can be substantiated.

They can if you use the definition of species that science uses rather than the unrealistic definition creationists use.

146 posted on 09/19/2005 11:39:21 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
I think it's more along the lines of a law of economics. Do you call laws of economics laws of physics?

There are aspects of evolution that are as imprecise as economics, and for the same reason. You can't predict the future in detail. Natural selection, as an idea, got its start from the ideas of the Scottish economists like Adam Smith. The basic thought is that the marketplace brings order out of chaos, and that the most efficient economy occurs when there is an absence of central planning.

This is an imprecise formulation, and many general science writers extend it into areas where it doesn't belong.

Common descent, however is extremely precise in its formulation, and coupled with molecular biology, is as rigorous as physics. There's a lot of detailed work yet to be done, but common descent is continuously on the line, every time a new genome is mapped.

147 posted on 09/19/2005 11:39:23 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: rabair
I've gotten to the point where it's (AiG) one of the first pages I view every day.

I suppose if one makes it a daily point to keep his head buried in the sand, you'll never have to deal with reality? Have you ever read a real science book or is bogus pseudo science good enough for you?

148 posted on 09/19/2005 11:40:52 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What is the punishment for one who disobeys the law of evolution?

LOL

149 posted on 09/19/2005 11:46:42 AM PDT by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Fossil evidence is not the only evidence for evolution. Evolution is observed in extant populations. There is no doubt that evolution occurs, what does have questions remaining is the 'how' of evolution. That is the job of those developing the 'Theory of Evolution'.
150 posted on 09/19/2005 11:47:44 AM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson