BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR: Evolution in Action

Science ^ | December 2005 | Elizabeth Culotta and Elizabeth Pennisi

[tortoise]

The simple answer is that it was designed by the same creator, the one who created the heavens and earth.

You merely assert that this explanation is "simpler" using some vague definition of "simple" that you've invented. By every useful rigorous metric of "simpler" we have, your explanation isn't.

Prove that your answer is "simple". No reasonable person is going to take it on faith.

[Dimensio]

Godwin invoked. You lose the discussion.

[VRWCmember]

Illustrating the intellectual strength of your argument by citing the most outrageous quotes you can find of your opposition is not exactly an example of arguing from a strong position. I have seen comments and rationale FOR evolution and against creation/ID/scientific creationism (or whatever else you might wish to call it) that show the same level of ignorance as the quotes you listed.

If I were to attempt to evaluate the article posted, I would start with the first sentence that claims that the theory of evolution is the "foundation" of biology. That sentence is about as accurate as saying that the Laffer Curve is the "foundation" of economics. The various theories of Evolution make up a branch of biological inquiry, but to assert that evolution is the foundation of biology is just plain wrong, especially when the "disprovability" argument against creation science as a scientific study can just as easily be made regarding evolution. Either position (evolution or creation) requires acceptance of assumptions or ideas that can neither be proven nor disproven by scientific experimentation to interpret the data or evidence available.

[Dimensio]

especially when the "disprovability" argument against creation science as a scientific study can just as easily be made regarding evolution.

Find a transposon present in whales and cows but not hippos and the theory of evolution suddenly starts looking quite untenable.

The theory of evolution predicts that you will never find Precambrian rabbit fossils.


Either position (evolution or creation) requires acceptance of assumptions or ideas that can neither be proven nor disproven by scientific experimentation to interpret the data or evidence available.

There are hypothetical observations that would falsify evolution, though you are correct in that nothing can prove it simply because absolutely no explanation in science can be proven.

[Echo Talon]

Well we have a man stating that minerals and nature have a tendency for symmetry, and looking at the skeletons of numerous animals that same symmetry applies. Thats is the creators "signature" look at artists great works they all have similarities and traits, and this is no different.

[Dimensio]

Thats is the creators "signature" look at artists great works they all have similarities and traits, and this is no different.

You're assuming your conclusion without demonstrating it.

[VRWCmember]

The theory of evolution predicts that you will never find Precambrian rabbit fossils.

So does that mean that if you found Precambrian rabbit fossils then evolution would be disproven?

[tortoise]

Thats is the creators "signature" look at artists great works they all have similarities and traits, and this is no different.

Non sequitur. You act as though symmetry is an unexpected characteristic, when the opposite is generally true. Symmetry is the "signature" of the physical characteristics of the system, nothing more.

[Dimensio]

So does that mean that if you found Precambrian rabbit fossils then evolution would be disproven?

Yes.

[MEGoody]

40 million evolutionary events

I'm always being told 'just look how close chimp DNA is to human DNA'. Okay, so tell me, how do we know it was '40 million evolutionary events' and not some other number?

[Starter]

Oh. I thought they'd gotten around to building Todos Santos.

[jennyp]

Well we have a man stating that minerals and nature have a tendency for symmetry, and looking at the skeletons of numerous animals that same symmetry applies. Thats is the creators "signature" look at artists great works they all have similarities and traits, and this is no different.

Not only do I have one heart on my left side and none on the right, I have one liver on my right side and none on my left.

But apparently that doesn't make me as much a freak as I thought:

... In fact, all vertebrates are fundamentally asymmetrical. The development of a vertebrate embryo results in the heart moving slightly to the left, for example, the liver to the right, and the right lung developing three lobes and the left lung two. Behaviour can also be asymmetrical. Just as humans can be right-handed, left-footed, or have a dominant eye, monkeys can prefer to use one paw to reach for fruit and humpback whales prefer to use one flipper over another when slapping the water. Snakes can prefer to coil one way rather than the other. Why might this be?

Fishing for answers
Watching chimpanzees 'fish' for termites by pushing a twig into a termite mound, it becomes clear that some chimpanzees are right-handed, some are left-handed - and some are ambidextrous. But those that are either strongly right- or strongly left-handed get to eat a third more termites than ambidextrous ones, because by using just one hand each time, they become more practised at the task. They have specialised.

The two hemispheres of the vertebrate brain have also become specialised. Areas that need to communicate rapidly and constantly with each other for common tasks are best placed nearby. So, most people have a language area on the left side of the brain, which also deals with logic and usually controls the dominant hand. The right half has its own specialised areas for understanding three-dimensional space, musical pitch and savouring smells and tastes.

Lopsided language
The placement of the language centre in the human brain has caused a lot of interest, because complex, grammatical language is one of the most obvious differences between humans and other animals. In chimpanzees, the proportions of left- and right-handers are about 50:50. However, in every human culture throughout recorded history, about 90 per cent of people are right-handed. So, was the evolution of right-handedness associated with the evolution of complex language? ...

This would seem to agree with tortoise's statement that symmetry is simpler than asymmetry. Specialization tends to create asymmetry, even if the asymmetrical parts are hanging off a simpler symmetric scaffolding. Interesting.

[VRWCmember]

Wouldn't the theory also predict that there would be a plethora of transitional species in the fossil record if indeed one species evolved into another? Hypothetically, wouldn't the absence of such transitional forms in the fossil record be problematic?

[VRWCmember]

So does that mean that if you found Precambrian rabbit fossils then evolution would be disproven?
Yes.

Until we change the assumptions of the theory to accommodate precambrian rabbit fossils because we cannot accept a result that contradicts our foundational assumptions accepting the theory of evolution. So upon discovering precambrian rabbit fossils we modify the theory to explain how even though this previously would have been considered to disprove evolution, now it only serves to further support the theory. Now, rather than the theory of evolution, we have evolution of the theory.

[Dimensio]

Wouldn't the theory also predict that there would be a plethora of transitional species in the fossil record if indeed one species evolved into another?

There are a plethora of transitional species in the fossil record, at least as far as there are fossils. Fossilization is not a very common event, though, so you won't necessarily find a comprehensive catalog of every species that ever existed.

[Shalom Israel]

ERV sequences insert themselves randomly in host cells, and since these discovered sequences are in exactly the same location, with exactly the same "errors" that allowed the original infection to fail...

Yup, I'm afraid ERVs are such compelling evidence that they have forced even this Bible believer to take a fresh look at Genesis. Just as in teaching math--two guys with the same right answer might not have cheated; but two guys with the same wrong answer, definitely did.

One thing I'm curious about, not being a geneticist: how do we know that ERVs are in fact artifacts of retro-viruses, rather than an endogenous structure with some resemblances to a virus?

[highball]

Until we change the assumptions of the theory to accommodate precambrian rabbit fossils because we cannot accept a result that contradicts our foundational assumptions accepting the theory of evolution. So upon discovering precambrian rabbit fossils we modify the theory to explain how even though this previously would have been considered to disprove evolution, now it only serves to further support the theory. Now, rather than the theory of evolution, we have evolution of the theory.

Kindly provide an example of this "evolution of the theory" having been done.

Creationists love to talk about science adapting theories to suit the evidence. They don't seem to realize the nature of science.

[Echo Talon]

for a living creature to be in a "blob" state to form into these magnificent things with such complex systems it was a beautiful accident.

[highball]

Accident?

You don't really understand the ToE, do you?

[Dimensio]

Until we change the assumptions of the theory to accommodate precambrian rabbit fossils because we cannot accept a result that contradicts our foundational assumptions accepting the theory of evolution.

No, the assumptions wouldn't be changed. The theory might not be completely discarded but finding something like complex mammal fossils from a time period when mammals did not even exist would require extensive research before a revised theory -- if one could be constructed -- could accomidate the new observations. And such a revised theory would rely upon the observed physical evidence, not "assumptions".

Now, rather than the theory of evolution, we have evolution of the theory.

All theories are subject to revision should contradictory evidence arise. Evolution is no different than any other scientific theory in that regard.