Do you think this video is helpful? [see "What Is Evolution?"] Is it important to know that evolution requires genetic changes and that it's populations that evolve? Is it important to have a definition of evolution that covers antibiotic resistance in bacteria and blood types in humans?
237 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 237 of 237Did I misobserve?
Oh, yes. I, for example, am all about common descent, with never a bible verse in sight. I will admit that the evidence for common descent, as for any past events, is not experimental. Must science involve experiments? What, exactly, distinguishes experiments from other means of gathering evidence? You should think about that.
"I stand corrected" may perhaps not be the proper word to use, but I get your points and they make good sense to me.
John Harshman-
The quality of evidence is related to the scientific controls used in collecting the observations and the statistical significance of the resulting measurements.
lutesuite-
Not every question leads to debate. Certainly one can discuss a science question ‘how far away from the sun is the earth?’ without entering into too much debate.
But if you start with ‘common descent’, you almost assure a debate about bible verses, which has nothing to do with science at all.
I think that’s the point I was making.
judmarc-
I have studied a good bit of the math associated with quantum mechanics.
I haven’t found any math that made any suggestion about a need for a designer one way or the other.
Which formula are you talking about?
Jack,
Might I suggest that you know little about science other than in the narrow range of experimental science? Controls are sometimes important. Statistical tests are sometimes important. But they aren't the sole measures of science.
John Harshman-
Thank you.
I think you are discounting the applicability of the definition I gave, I believe it is close to a standard definition for the ‘quality’ of ‘scientific evidence’, including fossils.
For example, I think with fossils there is a difference between a fossil found by a well known paleontologist on a university sponsored excavation verses the fossil bought in China from some guy who claimed his grandfather found it ‘over there a long time ago’.
If one considers the fossil as the ‘observation’, then the difference might be considered the amount of ‘scientific control’ over the observation.
I think that’s how it applies anyway.
But if you start with ‘common descent’, you almost assure a debate about bible verses, which has nothing to do with science at all.
I think that’s the point I was making.
Same thing happens if you end with that, as well, in my experience. There are people whose religion prevents them from accepting common descent, and no amount of education is going to convince them. Larry has been educating creationists about "change in allele frequency" for a couple decades or so. Ask him how much success he has had in getting them to accept common descent.
So instead of "controls", which has a definite meaning in experimental science, you are really talking about the reliability of observations. Well of course that's important. A fossil without a known locale and stratigraphic level is less valuable than one with them. Sure. I had thought you were trying to answer my question about what distinguishes experiments, which you think are science, from observations outside a laboratory context, which you think are not. Is paleontology science or, as you previously seemed to claim, just history?
lutesuite-
It sounds like the question you want an answer to is ‘how do I get a creationist to accept common descent?’, or something like that. I have no idea.
John Harshman-
Paleontology is the study of fossils in an attempt to retell the history of life on earth.
In science, the quality of evidence is related to the scientific controls used in collecting the observations and the statistical significance of the resulting measurements.
In experimental science, the controls can be very precise; like those at CERN.
With experimental evidence we can have the highest quality of evidence, where any question can be answered by isolating the confounding factors and controlling for them, and then ‘proving’ the results by repeating them until an arbitrarily high standard of statistical significance can be achieved.
You seem to be arguing fossils have no quality as scientific evidence.
I was trying to say they have some. I was trying to be nice.
lutesuite-
It sounds like the question you want an answer to is ‘how do I get a creationist to accept common descent?’, or something like that. I have no idea.
Well, here you've been going on about how you know exactly what needs to be done i.e. by talking about change in allele frequency first. So it's nice of you to finally admit you were just bullshitting.
Helpful hint, Jack Jackson:
First learn the correct meaning of the term "control" in science. Then start talking about controls as used in science. Unless your goal here is to just continue bullshitting.
You seem to be arguing fossils have no quality as scientific evidence.
I have no idea how you could have received that impression. All science consists of making and interpreting observations of nature. Experiments are just setting up conditions in which particular observations are more likely. This can be useful, but it isn't the main requirement for science. Paleontology is science and is for the most part not experimental.
lutesuite-
In science a ‘control’ is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.
Here is how I imagine it (I’m not a paleontologist)—
If one is dealing with a fossil, then one wants to know when the creature in the fossil was captured, because one needs to know when something happened to fit it into a history. To do that there are a variety of scientific dating methods.
The dating methods involve a variety of processes and choices— The observations about where the fossil was found, what the fossil was found next to, which strata the fossil was in and so forth are attempts to minimize the effects of some variables (motion of earth crust, weathering) in aiding the dating process, isn’t that correct?
If so, then a fossil with a ‘pedigree’ would have more scientific evidential value than one without the ‘pedigree’ because the observations that allow for certain variables to be properly dealt with were in place at the time of the find and so the dating process is more likely to produce an accurate date.
Something like that?
John Harshman-
‘observing nature’ got us homeopathy (and poorly controlled experiments will still yield positive results).
The ‘double-blind, placebo controlled’ type experiment gave us modern medicine.
What is wrong with the designation ‘natural history’?
‘observing nature’ got us homeopathy (and poorly controlled experiments will still yield positive results).
The ‘double-blind, placebo controlled’ type experiment gave us modern medicine.
Nonsense. Homeopathy has nothing to do with observation, however poorly controlled. You are attacking a strawman version of non-experimental science.
What is wrong with the designation ‘natural history’?
Nothing at all, as long as you understand that natural history is science.
I have studied a good bit of the math associated with quantum mechanics.
I haven’t found any math that made any suggestion about a need for a designer one way or the other.
Which formula are you talking about?
Bill Cole, is that you?! (I know it isn't, it's just the very same "down the rabbit hole" thinking, and completely the opposite of what Feynman, for example, talks about.)
So you've studied all this quantum math, and it hasn't occurred to you it's fundamentally based on *probabilities*? So that over billions of years, especially with its start in the Big Bang that you also claim to understand so much about, where any slightest perturbation had profound effects, it becomes impossible to plan or predict results like, oh for example, life, much less life on some tiny unremarkable planet in one of billions of galaxies, much less the specific aspects of that life (e.g., that humans would be here).
lutesuite-
In science a ‘control’ is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.
No, it isn't. I asked you to learn the correct definition of "control". Not to make up your own definition.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is, sort of. I mean, that is the intent: you do a test that's identical to the experiment except that it leaves out the thing you're trying to look at. He may not have stated it well, but I think I know what he meant. Of course there are all sorts of controls. In any PCR reaction, for example, you're supposed to have both positive and negative controls. The negative control is for contamination and includes everything but the template, and should produce no product. The positive control is for bad reagents and has a template you know ought to work. I just think that in practice he's extending way past his own definition.
lutesuite-
I gave a perfectly good definition for a ‘control’.
John Harshman-
My comparison between fossil hunting and experiments that show homeopathy is effective was a straw man attack. Beating a straw man can be so much fun when I’m doing it, but it usually turns out to be somewhat embarrassing when the dust settles. Excuse me.
My fanciful musings about how some of the information collected by a fossil hunter would be used as ‘control’ information by a lab asked to date the specimen, isn’t so far off, is it?
judmarc-
I take it you are not into the current fad of the universe as a ‘computer simulation’. Did I get that right?
The math of quantum mechanics gives us the probabilities of various possibilities (given a measurement is taken). That’s the math I know best, probability. I think that explains some of my affinity for population genetics. I like stochastic processes.
So are you saying this universe had to be designed this way, or that it could not have been designed this way? That’s the part I can never figure out.
My fanciful musings about how some of the information collected by a fossil hunter would be used as ‘control’ information by a lab asked to date the specimen, isn’t so far off, is it?
Yes, it's quite far off. Of course labs generally don't date specimens. They date igneous rocks, mostly. Determining the age of a fossil isn't something you do in a lab. And I'm not sure what you think "motion of earth's crust, weathering" have to do with it.
There really aren't enough popular science books on geology. I don't know why that is.
Jack,
You claim to have seen a paper, but "a paper" really isn't enough to go on. Perhaps you could provide a full citation. I don't know what paper you think I saw. Not all evolutionary biology is population genetics, and you should start trying to realize that.
I am not claiming that history is not history, whatever you mean by that. And I'm not a lawyer. I'm an evolutionary biologist.
Yes it is, sort of. I mean, that is the intent: you do a test that's identical to the experiment except that it leaves out the thing you're trying to look at. He may not have stated it well, but I think I know what he meant.
Well, if you're feeling in a generous mood, that's fine. Personally, I wouldn't expect a knowledgeable person to define "control" as an "observations" or "experiment." But I suppose if you squint at it just right, it looks correct. I'll give him that one, just to be fair.
Please tell me the ‘population genetics’ people know about HGT.
Eugene Koonin, "The Logic of Chance"
So are you saying this universe had to be designed this way, or that it could not have been designed this way? That’s the part I can never figure out.
Our observations indicate the universe *is* this way (i.e., quantum mechanics has been confirmed down to as many decimal places as anyone has ever care to test).
Given this fact, hypothesize a designer. If a designer created the universe we have observed, fundamentally based on probabilities, so one can never be quite certain in predicting anything, the designer Itself could therefore not be certain of Earth, life, humans, etc. In fact with the significant effects proceeding from the merest perturbations in the Big Bang, it would be impossible to be certain of stars, planets, galaxies, etc., made of matter. Thus if a designer created the universe we observe, said designer could not have intended matter, stars, black holes, galaxies, Earth, life, us. All these would necessarily have been stochastic, contingent occurrences.
judmarc,
thanks.
John Harshman-
It’s funny, I can agree that one can use science to uncover the history, but I’m still thinking what has been uncovered is history, not science.
I think it has something to do with my feeling that science is about things that are ‘always true’ whereas history is about what happened one time.
The difference between an experimental result and the principle that can be used to predict the experimental result. One is part of the history of science, the other is the science.
I wonder if my demarcation is unusual.
judmarc-
If I hypothesis an anthropomorphized designer, then I would say the universe was made by someone who wanted to see an uncertain process unfold rather than someone who wanted to produce a static and certain result.
The ‘designer’ set things up so out of the ‘possible’ outcomes, the ‘actual’ outcome is determined to some extent ‘at random’.
‘At random’ means a couple of things to me.
1- what happens is not determined by the past (it doesn’t matter how many heads I just flipped, the next one is 50-50).
2- There isn’t an algorithm that produces ‘at random’, ‘at random’ is not a mechanism, can’t be predicted.
This implies the actual comes about through a means that involves something that is not mechanical, nor is it determined by the past. That sounds like ‘continuous creation’ to me.
That ‘god’ needs no ‘gap’ to work in, what we see is the result of his continuous creation.
I’m guessing that’s not the implication you were thinking of.
I wonder if my demarcation is unusual.
No, it's fairly common among creationists who are attempting to dismiss all the historical sciences. Is that your intent?
Science isn't about things at all. It's about how one can gain reliable knowledge about the world, including its present and past conditions. Now, if past events were completely unique, meaning that no generalizations could be made, science would be impossible. Your distinction is false, and your definition of science would, it seems to me, eliminate almost everything except the few bits of physics that cover universal laws.
Population genetics isn't about HGT very much; it's more a subject for phylogenetics.
It think this statement is a good example of why I hold the "changes in allele frequencies in populations" definition in very high esteem. The first thing to note is that it leaves open the question of what populations we are talking about. I tend to follow up this definition of evolution with the following:
Somatic evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations of cells.
Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms.
Macroevolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations of species.
Then using Williams abstract definition of genes, i.e. they must be heritable, local, discrete (there is only a countable number of possible alleles and individuals can't have an arbitrarily high number of them) and the rate of endogenous change must be low enough (the critical rate here would be 1 expected alteration per generation), you get a pretty comprehensive way of figuring out if something is evolutionary biology or not. In the case of phylogenetics it's worth noting that clade membership qualifies as a gene - every species can be thought of as having an "is this a bird" gene, with two possible alleles (yes and no).This is heritable - any daughter species of a bird is also a bird, it has a low endogenous rate of change (none whatsoever) and 2 is smaller than uncountably infinite. Since we can't directly measure the state of these phylogenetic genes, we have to use other genes that are informative about their state. So what we use is linkage disequilibrium (it's worth noting here that apomorphic traits generally also qualify as genes under the Williams definition and that molecular data qualifies if subsequence lenghts are small - but we usually compare individual bases or AAs in an allignment which does make them short enough to qualify as species level genes in sensu Williams)!
As far as HGT goes: Population genetics starts with some very general models, which do include recombination, which leads to ancestral-descendent relationships being described by a general graph. If you dial recombination down to 0 (or inbreeding up to 1) you get the special case of a tree. Since species are defined by a lack of recombination, by definition they produce trees. Now microbiologists have been somewhat weird about this for ages. First they complained that the general model had recombination, while their stuff didn't recombine (oddly enough no complaints from - say - people working on Cubozoans, which alternate between sexual and asexual generations). So it was pointed out to them that the general model did include the special case of no recombination. Then they found evidence for HGT, so there was recombination going on. And they somehow got the idea that this changes everything, while of course they could just use the general model without turning recombination off completely...
John Harshman-
I am not a creationist attempting to disregard the findings of historical science.
What I am is a clueless guy who thinks that if you are talking about how life forms evolve and you are talking about how ’alleles changing over time’ describes the activity, and you are doing demonstrations about how that works, and showing some of the math that is used to describe the actions… then you are talking about science and that would be done in a science class.
If you are talking about the history of life on earth, then you are talking about common descent and that would be done in a history class.
I think it is clear that I must be simple minded to come up with that.
The hoped for benefit of doing it the way I’m suggesting is that the bible thumpers will argue about the bible in the history class (where it is actually appropriate) and they will not argue about the bible in the science class (where it is inappropriate).
I mean no disrespect by calling history, history. I’m too stupid to understand what the problem is.
Simon Gunkel-
Thank you extremely much.
What you say about the definitions is interesting and what you say about the models makes sense.
The hoped for benefit of doing it the way I’m suggesting is that the bible thumpers will argue about the bible in the history class (where it is actually appropriate)
Arguing against common descent on the basis of the Bible is no more or less appropriate, regardless of in which class it occurs.
The ‘designer’ set things up so out of the ‘possible’ outcomes, the ‘actual’ outcome is determined to some[indeterminable] extent ‘at random’.
I added one word there in brackets. And that's fine. But then what need for a designer?
if you are talking about how life forms evolve and you are talking about how ’alleles changing over time’ describes the activity, and you are doing demonstrations about how that works, and showing some of the math that is used to describe the actions… then you are talking about science and that would be done in a science class.
If you are talking about the history of life on earth, then you are talking about common descent and that would be done in a history class.
Re-read Simon's post that you appeared to like with the discussion of the allele frequency definition, particularly the bits pertaining to a tree, and think about the implications for common descent. Why would you explain a theory that points to result x, and then place the observational confirmation of result x in an entirely different classroom? Separate "Here's what is predicted" from "What's found confirms the prediction"? Makes no pedagogical sense.
How about this?: Science is what scientists do. Paleontologists (and others who do work in the historical sciences) are scientists. Therefore paleontology is science. History, on the other hand, is a thing that happened to humans within the last few thousand years. Paleontology is no more history than is cosmology or plate tectonics.
judmarc-
I thought you claimed physics proves there is no god.
I pointed out that claim is false. I make no further claim on that matter.
Now you want to argue the students should be taught about Markov chains before they are taught about common descent.
You flatter me.
John Harshman-
I have been misusing the term ‘history’. I should have continued to use ‘natural history’ where I used ‘history’. ‘history is reserved for ‘humans’ and ‘natural history’ is about everything else, apparently.
I think people are part of nature, so this division has elluded me until a few minutes ago when i looked up the term- ‘history’.
There is a divide in our language; ‘man vs. nature’ in literature, ‘artificial selection’ in science, ‘unnatural, man made foods’… all these strange language constructs that place a divide between nature and man. So we have ‘prehistory’ or ‘natural history’ for before man and ‘history’ after man.
I’m sorry for any confusion. I was being ignorant. I forget people don’t consider themselves part of nature and how much this can effect the language.
If ‘science is what scientists do’, then I take it science has a lot to do with arguing about how life evolved based on bible verses. (That’s a cheap shot, but you were asking for it, right?)
I'm glad you realize at least some of your cheap shots. I don't think I get your point, though. Do you have one?
judmarc-
I thought you claimed physics proves there is no god.
I pointed out that claim is false. I make no further claim on that matter.
Now you want to argue the students should be taught about Markov chains before they are taught about common descent.
You flatter me.
I suppose if you can't argue with what I've said, you must argue with things I haven't said. I didn't say either one of the things you mention above.
Post a Comment