Talk:Evolution/Raspor's objections

Gravity vs. Evolution
"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

where is the experiment that proves the above? gravity's tenets can be proven experimental not evolution

economics tenets cannot be proven experimentally. evolution is more analogous to economics or athropology or archaeology

raspor 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that insects gain immunity to particular insecticides through consecutive generations, or that staph bacteria are becoming more resistant to antibiotics, or that certain species of corals are adapting to higher levels of UV radiation while others perish--are all observable examples of evolution. I would suggest learning a bit more about Evolution and science in general, because I think it sounds like you share some misconceptions that are fairly common.

Suggested reading: Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark ISBN 0345409469.

yes of course i know that these adaptations occur. the point remains that the major tenets of evolution:

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor"

is not testable. anymore than many economic principles are not testable

try reading some economics theorists and some of your misconceptions might be cleared up

raspor 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I wrote the evolution and gravity section for the most part, what is your problem with it? We cannot see all the aspects of gravity either you know. We do not have direct observations of what causes earthquakes either, or what causes the sun's magnetic field. We cannot see an electron either. So what? Here are aspects of the theory of gravity we do not understand yet:
 * 1) apparent antigravitational forces on cosmic scales
 * 2) difficulty reconciling gravity with other forces
 * 3) confusion and misunderstanding about quantum gravity and where to look for it
 * 4) lack of observations of gravitons, or other features
 * 5) Some experiments that appear to have too much variance in the results, or some bias, etc
 * 6) problems with mathematics in some gravitational theories
 * 7) problems understanding about what to do mathematically inside the Schwarzschild radius
 * 8) not enough observational evidence for some features like miniblack holes, Hawking radiation or whatever
 * 9) not understanding the relation of gravity and dark matter
 * 10) variational formulation of field equations; what does this mean exactly? Why are they optimal?
 * 11) should cosmological constant be incorporated or not?
 * 12) is there a stochastic aspect to gravity or not?
 * 13) why does gravity exist?
 * 14) Why does gravity appear mainly in the attractive form? --Filll 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

evolution is a historical science as is ecomonics. gravity is a physical science as is chemistry

the methods are different. you honestly dont see that?

raspor 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand scientific method. It is possible to make falsifiable scientific predictions about things that existed in the past, or in the fossil record.

In fact, all events we can observe have happened in the past. Tarinth 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

yes of course we can make retrodictions. but there is a big difference between the physical, historical, and sociological sciences and the methods they use

economics and evolution are more similar than gravity and evolution would you not agree?

raspor 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution
It is true that the fossil records of evolution document events that happened in the past. The field records of evolution (Tilapia, nylon eating bacteria, etc) are even in the recent past, but still the past. The only examples of evolution occuring in real time, in controlled laboratory conditions are those on some bacteria and fruit flies and other fast breeding ceatures.

Gravity
We do have laboratory measurements of gravity. Every time you weigh something you are measuring gravity. These can all be done in laboratory situations, in controlled circumstances, just as those in evolution. However, one can also make measurements of gravity that are historic. A lot of the cosmic measurements of gravity are a long time in the past; millions of years or more in the past in many cases. The most important recent observations in gravity are all astronomical, and show evidence of antigravity.

A lot of gravity theory is indirect and not observed. Who has seen a graviton? Who has seen space and time bending? Who has seen quantum effects in gravity? Who has seen a hybrid gravity and EM force? In this sense, the observations of evolution are FAR more direct and clear than those of gravity. Gravity is far more esoteric than evolution is. There is no comparison. Evolution is so obvious it is not even worth debating, by comparison to gravity. Gravity is incredibly complicated and involved.

Comparison of gravity and evolution
Both have data from laboratory. Both have data from distant past. Both have aspects that are inferred from the data and not observed.

So? What is your problem with the comparison?--Filll 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

you really dont see how evolution is closer to economics? they are mostly based on historical info. the methods are different. as the methods are diffi social sciences.

how can you test say the theory that tax cuts increase productivity? can't can only interpret data. we can test most evertying about gravity

evolution's biggest tenets are based on the fossil record. gravity's is most based on experiments.

raspor 19:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll makes a good point, and echoes my comment above. Since are human, and unable to perceive things exactly at the same time as they occur, all of our observations are for past events. I am not sure what you are getting at by attempting to compare biology to economics; both are capable of making scientifically falsifiable predictions, just as mathematics or experimental psychology or physics can. Examples of realms of study that cannot make testable predictions would include things like poetry or fashion design or theology (well, maybe fashion design can, in some way that my limited mind can't conceive of at the moment).

Are you attempting to imply that biology is not an experimental science? I submit for evidence the wealth of pharmaceutical products you are likely to avail yourself of during your lifetime, few of which would exist today if it wasn't for the modern understanding of biology which includes genetics and evolution. Tarinth 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

biology yes evolution no. pharmaceuticals could have been invented whether god or evolution creared life. evolution states life was created by mutations and natural selection.

if the earth was 6000 yrs old we still could have create pharmaceuticals.

"economics; both are capable of making scientifically falsifiable predictions, just as mathematics or experimental psychology or physics can"

whoah. cant have a control group with econ. or how humans came from gerbles. big dif

raspor 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution does not predict that humans came from gerbils (or monkeys). It predicts that both gerbils and monkeys and humans descend from a common ancestor (just as humans and bananas descend from a common ancestor). This understanding has led biologists to make testable predictions that have enhanced our lives. I'd encourage you to gain an understanding of the subject further. Tarinth 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

of course i know that. duh! i think you need to understand a little better.

ok how has the alleged fact that we came from reptiles ehance our lives? and what are the testable predictions assuming that we were not created by God (or aliens)?

raspor 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Evolution provides a framework in which to interpret all the data we have. Without it, we would not have a clear picture of what was happening in antibiotic resistance of bacteria, and creation of new viral species that threaten us. The origin of these would be big mysteries. Is it God being malicious that is creating these new Viruses? Some would claim it is because there are homosexuals in the US so God created new viruses to plague us because he is unhappy with us. The understanding that ties genetics together would be missing. what about overuse of triclosan? We only know about that from an understanding of evolution. Species close to humans so that we can extrapolate laboratory studies on animal models to humans? We know that from using evolutionary understanding. Evolution is extremely important in biology, just like gravity is in physics. There are literally hundreds of thousands of testable predictions. The literature is full of them. Do you think all those millions of scientists are lying to you? A conspiracy? All those courts that ruled against creationism? Are the judges minions of Satan? Do you think that all of science is full of stupid people and only you and a few other malcontent extremists are smart enough to figure it all out? Give me a break. And yes, about half of the US population has been abducted by alien spacecraft piloted by bigfoot, who was in a conspiracy to fake the moon landing and bring down the world trade center and blame it on the arab muslims. Right...tell me another one.--Filll 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're asking about a fairly narrow issue, but to answer your question regarding predictions regarding humans and reptiles: evolution predicted that the jawbones of reptiles evolved into the bones of the inner ear of mammals.  This was mocked by creationists for a long period of time ("how could the reptiles chew?" being a common complaint) but we have recently found transitional species.  Upon further invetigation we found that the reptillian jawbones of the transition species were capable of transferring sound better than previous organisms.  Collectively, our understanding of things like this and our ability to make predictions from evolution has led to just about everything in modern biology, be it better medicines or an understanding of the environment and the creatures that inhabit it.  Tarinth

ok how has the alleged fact that we came from reptiles ehance our lives?

read carefully. antibiotic resistance would be there whether we came from reptiles or were created in the garden of eden. or if aliens seeded the planet. yes i agree knowledge of evolution helps us but how would things be different if God or aliens designed the DNA coding?

what it modern biology would not exist if again aliens seeded the earth and caused the cambrian explosion?

thanks for stopping by

raspor 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As many creationists do, you are mixing apples and oranges, as I am sure you know. Abiogenesis and panspermia have nothing to do with evolution. This is about evolution, not that other stuff. So go to those articles to discuss it. This is not about the big bang. This is not about abiogenesis or radioactive decay or Usher's date for creation or dynamo theory of the earth or hubble's constant or any of thousands of other pieces of nonsense that people invent to try to protect biblical inerrancy. It is about evolution. Period.--Filll 21:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a creationist first of all and read this:

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor. [2][3]"

this is in the article. it is saying panspermia and alien or God intervention never happened.

and you are saying that knowing that panspermia did not happen helps us with knowing about antibiotics

doesnt make sense to me

raspor 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

more raspor objections
creationists and IDer believe in evolution. they do not believe that there was not a designer.

how can the knowledge that life was not seeded by aliens during the cambrian change what we know now. it would not matter. its just philosophy

raspor 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some believe in evolution. Some do not. Do not speak for them all, because there is a wide variation in opinion, frankly. Evolution has nothing to do with panspermia or abiogenesis etc. It is its own theory. Just like gravity has only a little to do with chemical reactions.--Filll 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if God or aliens designed the DNA coding mechanism (a pointless argument I don't feel like getting into, one that is based entirely upon speculation) it has nothing to do with Evolution. I can't make any predictios based on either of those ideas; if you have a falsifiable prediction you'd like to present, please do so. No part of modern biology would exist without an understanding of evolution, because we would have no basis from which to make any predictions (it would be guesswork, and not science).

Because organisms evolve to adapt to their unique environments, their genome codes for proteins that do not exist in other organisms. All organisms (including reptiles) have unique products that we can learn from to enhance our lives; other organisms can show us how they have solved problems in surviving in certain environments, and we've learned from many of these proteins to create better drugs and biotechnologies.

Here are some more predictions made by Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

Tarinth 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And here are a few of the millions of things we've created or learned based on predictions from Evolution. Intelligent Design or panspermia theories did not provide a basis for any of these:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

yes i agree evolution has useufulness Ider and creationists would agree with you

but how does knowing that panspermia never happend help us?

why waste time looking for whale fossils. how has that helped us?

raspor 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "why waste time looking for whale fossils. how has that helped us?" - What a curious statement! Are you, perhaps, unaware that the transitional fossils for the evolution of whales from land animals WERE actually found?  Indeed, this is a good example of the predictive power of evolution: we didn't have many of these fossils for a long time, but evolution predicted their existence, and they were eventually found.  The same applies to Tiktaalik: there was a gap in the transitional sequence for the evolution of land animals from fish, so scientists went hunting in rocks of the right age, and the gap was filled.  Or was this intended as a general attack on scientific enquiry, like "why waste time looking for black holes or the Higgs boson, how has that helped us?" --Robert Stevens 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all scientific knowledge is useful, at least immediately. That is where one gets the distinction between pure and applied science. Also, we do not know anything about panspermia or not. We have evidence on both sides. It is undecided as of yet, as far as I know.--Filll 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

so you have doubts about the theory of evolution? you could get trouble here with that attitude. they will put you in time-out


 * Please avoid putting words in someone's mouth. There's no way you can read his statement to draw the conclusion you just did.  Science is an inherently open process and things are often learned with a large time-gap between understanding and application.  We are spending billions of dollars right now to understand subatomic particles that will probably have no useful application anytime soon, but might also change our understanding of everything.  Evolution isn't even close to that (because it makes useful predictions and applications all the time), but nevertheless there will always be a certain number of predictions without immediate application.  If anything, that points to a strength of science, not a problem. Tarinth 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

he said that panspermia might be true that means evolution is not.

"We are spending billions of dollars right now to understand subatomic particles that will probably have no useful application anytime soon" but its not OK to spend 5 million on ID.


 * Of course--science has consistently created useful applications for centuries. Pseudoscience has never created any useful applications I'm aware of. Tarinth 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

raspor 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Knowing that [panspermia|God|phlogiston|whatever] did not happen" doesn't help because knowledge of something absence doesn't allow me to draw any conclusions. When we suspect that something does exist, that's what allows predictions to be made. Evolution has nothing to say about panspermia, so it seems fairly irrelavent to this discussion. Tarinth 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Evolution has nothing to say about panspermia" as defined here is says i didnt happen

raspor 21:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Still not sure what you mean. I can say something like "Froopdah the Great Toad God-King does not exist!" and nobody in the world is more enlightened than before; you can't make a prediction on my statement of something's absence.  Evolution doesn't have anything to say about Froopdah, phlogiston, aliens or God. Tarinth 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

panspermia is a theory that says that evolutionary theory is incorrect. you cannot accept both theories as valid. they are mutally exclusive. so to say that panspermia is possible is to say that evolution might not be true.

raspor 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Consider these alternatives:
 * Suppose you had some primitive cells that reached the earth from space 3.5 billion years ago. Then evolution takes place and you get the diversity of life forms you see. Done.
 * Suppose that self organizing chemicals produced the first primitive cell on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Then evolution takes place and you get the diversity of life forms you see now. Done.
 * Suppose God produces the first primitive cell on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Then evolution takes place and you get the diversity of life forms you see now. Done.
 * Suppose God produced every single species as we now observe, independently 6,000 years ago. The species dont change much and you get the diversity of life forms you see now.
 * Suppose God produced the species we see independently, one by one, over the last 3.5 billion years. Every time a new species is created, God designs it personally. The species dont change much but some go extinct, and you get the diversity of life forms you see now.
 * Suppose that life was formed on the earth by God creating a primitive cell (a), or the first cell reached the earth from outerspace (b), or self organizing chemicals creating a prmitive cell (c). Evolution progresses. Suppose that some bacteria or viruses from outer space bombarded the earth or were introduced by aliens at one or more periods during the last 3.5 billion years. This is a change of the environment, and mutations and speciation rates change. Eventually you see the diversity of species you see now.

Now in options 1, 2, 3 and 6 we have evolution. Of these, panspermia created the first cell in option 1. A version of option 6, number 6b also starts with panspermia, but panspermia also changes the environment during the last 3.5 billion years. Creationism is seen in options 4 and 5. All the others include evolution: 1, 2, 3, 6a, 6b, 6c. So one can have evolution without panspermia. One can have evolution with panspermia. One can have God created life and evolution. And not. So what?--Filll 23:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"All life is a result of such speciation events and thus all organisms are related by common descent from a single ancestor."

no you cant according to this wiki def of evolution

raspor 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I have common descent in all the cases I claimed. And in all the cases I claimed, there is a common ancestor. What is wrong ?--Filll 23:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

all life according to evolution must have come from a commnon ancestor thru NATURAL SELECTION

so now you are telling me that God is OK in evolutionary theory?

raspor 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why there is a problem when you get your information from creation websites and fundamentalist preachers. Evolution is silent on where life comes from. All evolution does is present a theory for where the species come from. Where the life originated from is not part of evolution. Never was. This is a different field, called abiogenesis. Whether the first life came from God or Chemistry or Panspermia is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with evolution. And this is why a large fraction of Christians and other religions have no problem at all with evolution. Theistic evolution, right?--Filll 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

duh. i was talking about God or aliens adjusting life after it was created. duh. seeding

jeez

so it is OK to say GOD create DNA? that's ID: that some parts of life had to be designed

you are talking goofy

raspor 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Evolution does not concern itself with these issues. You are stepping over to things like chemical evolution, or self organizing chemistry, or panspermia or abiogenesis etc. You can of course say anything you want, but it is not science if God is involved.--Filll 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

you said that evolution was compatible with belief in God. you are the one who brought it up

raspor 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Mathematics
Evolution = atheism Evolution= religion ID=science atheists=Humanists=naturalists Creationism=science evolution=Big Bang+cosmochemistry+Hertzsprung-Russell Stellar theory+abiogenesis+biological evolution+speciation scientists=atheists ID>creationism Christians=biblical literalists Catholics != Christians scientists!= Christians Religion=Christianity Religious Creation accounts=Genesis --Filll 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)