tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed

tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Philip Bowles - 24 Jan 2005 08:32 GMT

>Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. wrote:
>> <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:1106070501.561900.77200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Gary Bohn wrote:
>> >> jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote in
>> >>> >
>> >> > yes, yes.. please tell us how evolution pass the Scientific

Method.

>> >> > every time I ask this question.. the thread dies..
>> >>
>> >> You are not worth answering.
>> >
>> > translation: " I do not know the answer, and therefore my reply

will be

>> > an ad-hom attack"
>>
>> So Jabriol, what part of the Scientific Method do you think

evolution does

>> not "pass"?
>>
>> Or do we need to explain Scientific Method to you all over again?
>
>Let see first if I got SM correct:
>
>1. Observe what happens.
>
>2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
>
>3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>
>4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true

Basically correct, though perhaps the most critical point is that 3
and 4 should not be separate - you test the theory to see whether its
predictions are correct. There is no separate stage where you sit
around waiting for evolution to take place, though as it happens
evolution has been observed in practice. So now, answer the question -
which of these has evolution failed to pass? THe initial observations
have obviously been carried out - Darwin based his orginal theory on
several hundred examples from his own observations, and while his
conclusions have since been refined the use of an evolutionary theory
to explain those observations is not in dispute. As explained both 3
and 4 have also been satisfied in the realms of genetics,
developmental biology, paleontology and pathology - have you read the
posts I linked you to yet?

>That being said, let me know if it is correct, note the following
>mentioned by a a peer review journal:

New Scientist is a popular science magazine, not a peer-reviewed
journal. Peer-reviewed journals carry papers rather than
journalist-written abstracts and articles.

>New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly
>a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian
>evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . .
>Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
>credentials."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
>
>Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does

not

>pass SM?

No. As mentioned, the reference is specifically to "Darwinian
evolutionary theory". It's debatable whether it is a "genuine
scientific theory", but it isn't debatable that it isn't the current
theory. Darwin's importance was in providing an explanation of the
broad mechanism by which evolution works, but the details of his
conclusions were not necessarily correct. In particular he maginalised
the role he felt that geographical isolation played in evolution,
while it is now acknowledged to be the main driving force behind it.
From the point of view of its validity as a scientific theory, Darwin
left crucial concepts (including those of fitness and species) only
loosely-defined and did not understand the basis of heredity. These
are not true of modern evolutionary theory.

>depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
>came into existence by chance, then by chance changed into new kinds,
>all the way from amoebas to men.

As already mentioned, evolution doesn't make any claims about how life
came into existence - it only started to act once life had emerged.
Although people use the term 'evolved' to describe the first
appearance of life, they don't mean that it evolved by natural
selection, any more than they do when they talk about the evolution
of, say, galaxies.

>As far as we know, life comes only from life. This can be proven by
>SM...

And indeed has been. However, it is fairly self-evident that life must
have come into being at some stage, however it happenedl, so clearly
there are conditions in which life can be derived from non-life.

> As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind, no
>variations going beyond the family kind.

This argument was discredited by Darwin himself on the basis that the
only differences between 'kinds' (varieties) and species were
differences in degree, not fundamental differences in type of
organism.

> One
>kind has not been observed changing into another kind; nor can it be
>made to happen in experiments.

Incorrect. Again see my previous post. Experiments on organisms
ranging from fruit flies to lizards and mice have shown physiological
and behavioural changes over several generations, while viruses and
bacteria are naturally evolving and forming new strains/species all
the time, especially notably in response to attack by drugs. Where you
start calling one a different 'kind' or species from another is a
matter of convention; in the accepted sense that two species are
populations that are reproductively isolated (principally by
geography) many of these experimentally-created populations are new
species.

> Evolution cannot be verified by the
>scientific method.

You really don't pay attention, do you? Are you programmed to reset to
this line after a certain time period, no matter what you learn in the
meantime?

>what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
>but behaviour wise, they are different, therefore some scientist may
>have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
>come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.

You're back in the 19th Century, I'm afraid. Scientifically the
definition of a species has been universally accepted for over 60
years.

>Many fossils within the family kinds have been found, but none

showing

>the millions of changes that would have had to take place to turn one
>kind into another.

What "millions of changes"? One species of, say, tree frog might not
be very different from a neighbouring species - maybe it makes a
slightly different call, or is a slightly different shade of green. On
the other hand it may have related species that are similar to it, but
less similar to the original tree frog, and so on. Evolution proceeds
by very small, gradual changes - this is something that Darwin seems
to have been right about. It is rather rare for a novel feature to
appear fully formed in the fossil record.

> Also required: faith in fossils that he
>>has never found

Prediction that species with certain characteristics existed based on
the existence of older and newer species. Very often such fossils have
since been discovered.

Philip Bowles

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / January 2005

tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again