Evidence for God from Science

Wall-dog wrote:What many ... question is the notion that 1) evolutionary divergence can lead to new species ... scientists like to point out that macro-evolution doesn't really exist because at no time does one species just suddenly become another species. Rather, small changes over a vast array of time lead to different lineages and at some point the species in existence from those different lineages can be classified differently from one another.

Time and space are dimensions. While we can't travel back in time we can travel in space. Here is an example of speciation by small incremental changes observable in space, just as you described it above.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html wrote: the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.

In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started.

A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring.

The evolutionary story that scientists have deciphered begins in the north, where the single form is found. This is probably the ancestral population. As it expanded south, the population became split by the San Joaquin Valley in central California, forming two different groups. In the Sierra Nevada the salamanders evolved their cryptic coloration. Along the coast they gradually became brighter and brighter.

The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed.

By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.

Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."

August wrote:I didn't mean to bog down the discussion between you and Wall-dog, but your statement, which I believe to be generally correct, does not seem to be consistently applied across the teaching of evolutionary theory. I have seen at least 10 more college curricula that teach origin of life theories as part of evolutionary biology. The distinction may not be as clear-cut as you think. Can you maybe comment as to why the origin of life was excluded from evolutionary theory, since Darwin did include it in his writings?

Different people use the same word with different meanings; the same people use the same word with different meanings in different contexts. Abiogenesis is obviously related to the evolution of life, so where else would it be covered in the curriculum? And in a broader usage of the word evolution, abiogenesis can be considered to be included, as well as the evolution of the solar system. In general I agree with you (as I have complained several times in other threads about sloppy word usage), but I can't see where you are going with this, just as I didn't understand why you were asking so much about the meaning of the word "science" elsewhere.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26933.html wrote:You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.
Richard Feynman
US educator & physicist (1918 - 1988)

Wall-dog wrote that Strobel wrote that Wells wrote: Henry Gee. the chief science writer for Nature, was quite candid ... [and] ... said quite bluntly: 'To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.'

That sort of makes it sound as though Dr Gee is not a big fan of evolution.

Henry Gee wrote:Wednesday, October 26th, 2005
8:02 pm
All The Way From Phoenix
I have just returned from a week in Mesa, Arizona, the location of the annual Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) meetings. Arizona was quite lovely, and the people kind, friendly and hospitable, as they almost always are in the United States, and most especially in the South-West. I once used to go to the SVP regularly for Nature, but what with one thing and another I hadn't been to SVP for four years. It was great to catch up with old friends and meets some new faces.

The most interesting session was about 'Intelligent Design' or 'ID' and what to do about it. For those who don't know, ID is another name for Creationism, the movement of largely Protestant Christian Biblical literalists who oppose the teaching of evolution in US schools. This is far from a fringe activity -- ID is well-funded and active in many US states, and poses a definite threat. In a way, it is the Dark Side to the refreshingly old-fashioned, courteous carriage of many US residents, and one so often feels that many of the slack, rude, inarticulate people you meet back home (this hits you immediately you touch down again in Heathrow) could do with a little Churchin' Up.

But evolution is the tip of the iceberg. In a bid to reassert old-time morality, the whole of science is fair game, and this is supported in varying degrees by the current US administration (see Chris Mooney's book 'The Republican War on Science' for what is generally regarded as an informed and balanced view, though I have yet to read it myself). The Republican attitude is entirely mercenary and has nothing to do with morality -- and here is where concerned scientists can get involved in the debate with some hope of winning.

There was a general feeling at the SVP meeting (whose members include people who teach other people about evolution, so they are naturally concerned) that the only way to win was by profession of one's own faith. Many scientists who have religious views have been cowed by the appallingly dictatorial militant atheism of Richard Dawkins, and the feeling that any admission of religious faith would be a sure way to loss of tenure, demotion or, at the very least, lack of respect from one's peers -- scientists being just as intolerant as anyone else, and some more than others. But the worm is turning. Of course, an atheist person can turn to a fundamentalist and demand to know how, precisely, he is less 'moral' than a churchgoer, but this is perhaps less compelling than the testament of a religious person. Better still, a religious person who knows their scripture, and who can ask difficult questions about precisely how literally *does* one read the Bible, if only in the King James translation -- what does it say in the original Hebrew? (Needless to say, it's not just the Christians who are at it -- there are plenty of fundamentalist Jews and Moslems who have difficulties with evolution).

I met a wonderful man named Stephen J. Godfrey, a creationist turned advocate for evolution, who turned me on to this way of thinking and gave me a reading list (including his own book), which I shall reproduce here, and then go buy on Amazon. When I read them I'll post reviews...

Alister McGrath -- "Dawkins' God"
Keith Ward "Chance, Necessity and God"
John Haught "A God After Darwin"
John Haught "Deeper than Darwin"
John Polkinghorne "The Faith of a Physicist"
Stephen J Godfrey and Christopher R Smith "Paradigms on Pilgrimage".

I'd read Polkinghorne's "Belief in God in an Age of Science" and felt very strongly that he'd have an easier time of it if he abandoned all the mysterious impedimenta of the Resurrection and such and became Jewish. Ah, well.

Another book with a sidelong slant on all this is "Rapture of the Deep -- The Art of Ray Troll", which I bought at the meeting for my daughter. Imagine if Marc Chagall had been born an American fly-fishing fossil nut, and you get the picture. One of Troll's best is a picture of the early fish Eusthenopteron crawling onto land with the logo "Out of the Ooze and Born to Cruise" -- and an installation featuring a blue Volvo station wagon with Darwin at the wheel and a fossil fish riding shotgun. It is called -- naturally -- the 'Evolvo'. And with that in mind, I shall repair to my own Volvo and add two bumper stickers I bought at a novelty stand. One says "Reunite Gondwanaland!", the other "Support a United Pangaea!"

sandy_mcd wrote:

August wrote:I didn't mean to bog down the discussion between you and Wall-dog, but your statement, which I believe to be generally correct, does not seem to be consistently applied across the teaching of evolutionary theory. I have seen at least 10 more college curricula that teach origin of life theories as part of evolutionary biology. The distinction may not be as clear-cut as you think. Can you maybe comment as to why the origin of life was excluded from evolutionary theory, since Darwin did include it in his writings?

Different people use the same word with different meanings; the same people use the same word with different meanings in different contexts. Abiogenesis is obviously related to the evolution of life, so where else would it be covered in the curriculum? And in a broader usage of the word evolution, abiogenesis can be considered to be included, as well as the evolution of the solar system. In general I agree with you (as I have complained several times in other threads about sloppy word usage), but I can't see where you are going with this, just as I didn't understand why you were asking so much about the meaning of the word "science" elsewhere.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26933.html wrote:You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.
Richard Feynman
US educator & physicist (1918 - 1988)

I don't want to derail the discussion here, but since you asked. Experimentation was identified as one of the demarcations of science. Macroevolution cannot be proven experimentally, so is it still science? (I just know this is going to be fun...). There are many other scientific areas which don't rely on experimentation (astronomy, archeology, quantum physics), so I would question the inclusion of experimentation as one of the demarcations of science anyway. How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation?

As for the origin of life, biological evolution accepts the existence of an organism with certain characteristics as axiomatic. However, something can only be considered axiomatic if it is self-evident or explained. That is the reason that colleges include origin of life in their courses on evolution. As we all know though, the origin of life is neither self-evident nor well explained at the moment. The question then is, how reliable can your theory be if one of the axioms are unknown? And I can hear the protests, have heard them many times: "We don't need to know it, all we are doing is describe the subsequent happenings." The problem with that line of reasoning is that at the very least life had to have certain characteristics that directly originated from pre-life for the evolutionary mechanisms to work as postulated. The demarcation between life and non-life then becomes a little foggy, and the boundary between the origin vs the existence of life vague, and boils down to the question how that can be experimentally proven? I.e. how do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not? By the definition given by the evolution supporters here, that would be the requirement for it to be scientifically valid.

Sandy,

I'll reply after BeGood has finished his series of posts. I think he has one more to go. I don't want to start arguing against the theory of evolution until that theory has been fully laid out. He's almost done and you can bet that I'm chomping at the bit...

August wrote:I don't want to derail the discussion here, but since you asked. Experimentation was identified as one of the demarcations of science. Macroevolution cannot be proven experimentally, so is it still science? (I just know this is going to be fun...). There are many other scientific areas which don't rely on experimentation (astronomy, archeology, quantum physics), so I would question the inclusion of experimentation as one of the demarcations of science anyway. How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation?

astronomy, archeology, and quantum physics use experimentation as much as any other science. its just that its a little different. its more of a process of trial and error, where it is easy for someone to prove that you are doing something wrong and correct them. astronomy is tied closely with physics, which is proven by mathematics, but they experiment with mathematical realities and how accurately they portray the universe. they make hypotheses concerning a certain aspect of the universe as shown by a mathematical theory and then they prove it by observing it in space.

archeology is just the process of finding, digging up, and reorganizing fossil remains. there is a lot of experimentation in all of these things. any of them can and have been done wrong, so we have to figure out how to do them better. thats experimentation.

quantum physics uses experimentation as well. there is theoretical experimentation, using math; and there is physical experimentation using things like powerful microscopes and particle accelerators. there is a lot of quantum experimentation going on now, actually.

macroevolution can be proven by solid logic with the evidence at hand. in the past, things such as this have not needed to be able to be disproven because so many people are able to agree with it. the same goes for the belief in a god. there is no possible way that you can prove god to be false. there are, however, many ways in which you could prove evolution false. the fact that none have been proven is enough support for evolution at the moment.

i think there actually is one thing which, if proven wrong, could disprove evolution. the fact that all organisms change. if you could prove that there is a limit to the amount of change the genes of a type of organism go through as they are passed from generation to generation, then you could disprove evolution. if you could prove that there is a force which keeps genes from deviating too much from the norm over a period of several million years, then you could prove evolution is false.

the real problem with the ability to prove or disprove evolution is that it could take millions of years. the process is so incredibly slow that we arent able to observe it in full action, we can only find clues and glimpses.

August wrote:As for the origin of life, biological evolution accepts the existence of an organism with certain characteristics as axiomatic. However, something can only be considered axiomatic if it is self-evident or explained. That is the reason that colleges include origin of life in their courses on evolution. As we all know though, the origin of life is neither self-evident nor well explained at the moment. The question then is, how reliable can your theory be if one of the axioms are unknown? And I can hear the protests, have heard them many times: "We don't need to know it, all we are doing is describe the subsequent happenings." The problem with that line of reasoning is that at the very least life had to have certain characteristics that directly originated from pre-life for the evolutionary mechanisms to work as postulated. The demarcation between life and non-life then becomes a little foggy, and the boundary between the origin vs the existence of life vague, and boils down to the question how that can be experimentally proven? I.e. how do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not? By the definition given by the evolution supporters here, that would be the requirement for it to be scientifically valid.

once you get into the intracacies of biological science you will know the answers to these questions. but its so incredibly complicated that i only know it works, not how. i've met a few of these people (i live near the university of florida) and they know so much about these things, about how everything interacts with each other or how we can gleam so much information about the environment from just a little piece of rock or dirt.

the only axiom i see that evolution depends on is that organisms change.

macroevolution can be proven by solid logic with the evidence at hand. in the past, things such as this have not needed to be able to be disproven because so many people are able to agree with it. the same goes for the belief in a god. there is no possible way that you can prove god to be false. there are, however, many ways in which you could prove evolution false. the fact that none have been proven is enough support for evolution at the moment.

ARGH!!!! PLEASE tell BeGood to hurry up!!

Zenith wrote:astronomy, archeology, and quantum physics use experimentation as much as any other science. its just that its a little different. its more of a process of trial and error, where it is easy for someone to prove that you are doing something wrong and correct them. astronomy is tied closely with physics, which is proven by mathematics, but they experiment with mathematical realities and how accurately they portray the universe. they make hypotheses concerning a certain aspect of the universe as shown by a mathematical theory and then they prove it by observing it in space.

You somewhat misrepresent what I said. I did not say that they do not use experimentation, I said that they did not rely on it as much as other scientific endeavors. As you pointed out, experimentation in those sciences have more to do with mathematical modelling and/or the inference of hypothesis. Sticking to the topic for a second, what about higher order sciences, like extra-sensory perception or human consciousness studies? Are those valid areas for scientific study? They follow the same method....lso, is it your position that all phenomena submit to necessarily naturalistic explanations?

archeology is just the process of finding, digging up, and reorganizing fossil remains. there is a lot of experimentation in all of these things. any of them can and have been done wrong, so we have to figure out how to do them better. thats experimentation.

You cannot recreate the exact environment around any of these, so to say that you experiment is painting experimentation with a pretty broad brush. While I don't deny that they do try to confirm and document their observations, it is not necessary to perform experiments to have a valid scientific theory.

You also did not answer my question, so I will assume that either you missed it, or you did not understand it, so I will elaborate a bit. My question was:

How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation?

If this definition of science, in the form of physical reductionism and methodological materialism is true, can you point to any experiments which show this to be the case? Please note, I am not asking for an apparent success story in the application of the method, I am asking for experimental proof of this foundational underpinning of the scientific method as an absolute, meaning it must work in all cases, always.

macroevolution can be proven by solid logic with the evidence at hand. in the past, things such as this have not needed to be able to be disproven because so many people are able to agree with it.

What evidence would that be? And please show what laws of logic you use. Is it your position that the majority position is necessarily the right one?

the same goes for the belief in a god. there is no possible way that you can prove god to be false. there are, however, many ways in which you could prove evolution false. the fact that none have been proven is enough support for evolution at the moment.

What on earth are you on about? I will let this stand until bgood has made his final post, but we will get back to this.

i think there actually is one thing which, if proven wrong, could disprove evolution. the fact that all organisms change. if you could prove that there is a limit to the amount of change the genes of a type of organism go through as they are passed from generation to generation, then you could disprove evolution. if you could prove that there is a force which keeps genes from deviating too much from the norm over a period of several million years, then you could prove evolution is false.

Ok, I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying...Do you mean that if there is proof of genetic limits, that evolution will be shown to be wrong? I want to expand on this, but I want to make sure that I understand you first.

the real problem with the ability to prove or disprove evolution is that it could take millions of years. the process is so incredibly slow that we arent able to observe it in full action, we can only find clues and glimpses.

Yes, that is right. What opponents of evolution take exception to is the amount of filling in that happens between the glimpses and how the clues are interpreted. Experiments performed on organisms with a short lifecycle, such as Drosphilia, shows no proof for macroevolution. This is what lead leading evolutionary biologists such as Dobzhansky to say that the application of experimental processes to macroevolution is all but impossible.

once you get into the intracacies of biological science you will know the answers to these questions. but its so incredibly complicated that i only know it works, not how. i've met a few of these people (i live near the university of florida) and they know so much about these things, about how everything interacts with each other or how we can gleam so much information about the environment from just a little piece of rock or dirt.

You seem to accuse me of being too stupid or uninformed to know that the problem of the natural origin of life has been solved. Why don't you provide some references from these very clever friends of yours, instead of asserting and reasoning in circles.

the only axiom i see that evolution depends on is that organisms change.

So according to you the theory of evolution includes the origin of life, since it is not taken to be axiomatic? But Bgood argues differently, he says it does not include the origin of life. If it is not included, but necessary for the ToE to work, i.e. organisms must exist before they can change, it is axiomatic.

Because Wall Dog is getting antsy I will cut to the chase.
=)

The following are the mechanisms of evolution which have been verified experimentally.

Life begets life
Experiments on spontaneous generation
Comparative genetic analysis
Natural Selection
Labratory experimentation
Population studies
Mutation
Lab studies on fruit flies and mice
Tracing features to changes in genetic sequence.
Studies of genetic disorders
Induced mutation studies.
Introduction of new features through gene transfer studies.
Mutation Mechanisms
Gene duplication
Errors in gene transcription
Diploid and multiple gene copies
Genetic drift
Labratory studies
Population studies

Now to return to a pressing question, why does evolution seem to occur in spurt? When there is a change in evironment organisms tent to migrate to familiar habitats.

It appears that animals would only suffer increased selection pressures when they have no choice for migration.

It would also appeat that adaptive radiation only occurs when there is a vacancy in an ecological niche.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11368151/

Because of these new findings the idea of punctuated equilibrium was added to the lexicon of evolution.

Because of the new field of genetic analysis it is now easy to see the division between species is a human construct.

The sequencing of the genetic code relealed how surprising little of the DNA code encodes for proteins.

Also interesting are overlapping genes for proteins, intron, retroviral insertions in the code, and little snippits of DNA which seem to just reproduce on their own and use our DNA as a host!

As the genetic code is revelaed a new field of proteomics will continue to unveil the mysteries of life.

As the genetic code reveals the building blocks of life, proteomics will continue in the study by revelaing how proteins interact and drive the chemistry of life.

August wrote:I don't want to derail the discussion here, but since you asked. Experimentation was identified as one of the demarcations of science. Macroevolution cannot be proven experimentally, so is it still science? (I just know this is going to be fun...).

What is the basis by which you differentiate between micro and macro evolution. There is no way to experiment with macro gravity yet we can calculate that there must be great gravitational forces in the center of the Milkyway by using models of gravitation determined through experimentation here on Earth.

In the same way we can determine the time it took for a mountain to erode away by extrapolating rates of erosion through lab experimentation on samples from the mountain.

The mechanism is change you are focusing on the outcome. The Theory is about the attraction of gravity you are focusing on the black hole.

August wrote:There are many other scientific areas which don't rely on experimentation (astronomy, archeology, quantum physics), so I would question the inclusion of experimentation as one of the demarcations of science anyway. How can you prove that definition of science to be true by experimentation?

All these areas depend on experimentation.
Astronomy
Spectronomy would not be what it is without experimenting on various elements and categorization of the resulting spectrums.
Observation of the periodicity of neutron stars reveal a wobble which if confirmed will lead to evidence of orbiting bodies.
Triangulation to determine stars distances.
Archeology is not a natural science.
Quantum Physics (All science is related however some experiments in quantum physics overlaps astronomy!)
Rutherfords ecperiment with Alpha Particles
Famous light slit experiment
All the particle accelerator experiemnts!
CRT experiment to discover the properties of electrons

You simply can't have science without going back and testing your ideas.

August wrote:As for the origin of life, biological evolution accepts the existence of an organism with certain characteristics as axiomatic. However, something can only be considered axiomatic if it is self-evident or explained.

No it only has to be observed, you don't need to know the origin of electricity to determine properties of it.
Electricity was discovered in 600 BC
William Gilbert gave it the name.
Ben Franklin found that lightning was also electricity.
It wasn't until 1897 that the electron was discovered.

You don't need to know the origin of life to study the mechanisms of life.

August wrote:That is the reason that colleges include origin of life in their courses on evolution.

No if you read those textbooks it is clear that an origin of life is not necessary for the study of life.

August wrote:As we all know though, the origin of life is neither self-evident nor well explained at the moment. The question then is, how reliable can your theory be if one of the axioms are unknown?

You must argue the results of the experiments, not on a philosophical ground. Science is not in the business of professing all knowledge. It is in the business of discovering the natural world.

August wrote:And I can hear the protests, have heard them many times: "We don't need to know it, all we are doing is describe the subsequent happenings." The problem with that line of reasoning is that at the very least life had to have certain characteristics that directly originated from pre-life for the evolutionary mechanisms to work as postulated.

And you're point is?

August wrote:The demarcation between life and non-life then becomes a little foggy, and the boundary between the origin vs the existence of life vague, and boils down to the question how that can be experimentally proven?

I think you're confusing the issue, the question is simply "how does life work".

August wrote:I.e. how do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not?

What do you mean?

August wrote:By the definition given by the evolution supporters here, that would be the requirement for it to be scientifically valid.

I don't understand your train of thought. You have failed to show how the theory of evolution requires an explanation for the origins of life.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What is the basis by which you differentiate between micro and macro evolution. There is no way to experiment with macro gravity yet we can calculate that there must be great gravitational forces in the center of the Milkyway by using models of gravitation determined through experimentation here on Earth.

Stop equivocating evolution with other scientific areas to make it appear to be valid science. It must stand on it's own, not continuously compared to other areas which bear no relevance to the theory under discussion, with dissimilar mechanisms, elements etc. If you cannot explain the validity of macroevolution as science without false analogies, I will take it you can't do it. Evolution is about the origin and development of life forms. Gravitational theory has nothing directly to do with the origin of any life forms.

I distinguish between macro and microevolution by virtue of the evidence at hand. Microevolution has evidence, macroevolution does not. And no, asserting that given enough time, there is no difference between the two does not work. You adhere to the scientific method, so show the evidence in compliance. For macroevolution to necessarily follow as an extension of microevolution, it must overcome the internal limitations of it's own mechanisms, mutation rates, adequate time for gradualism, reasons to assume and constrain non-gradual effects, and the restrictions imposed by real world physical and chemical laws, and correspondence with external evidence.

All these areas depend on experimentation.
Astronomy
Arrow Spectronomy would not be what it is without experimenting on various elements and categorization of the resulting spectrums.
Arrow Observation of the periodicity of neutron stars reveal a wobble which if confirmed will lead to evidence of orbiting bodies.
Arrow Triangulation to determine stars distances.
Archeology is not a natural science.
Quantum Physics (All science is related however some experiments in quantum physics overlaps astronomy!)
Arrow Rutherfords ecperiment with Alpha Particles
Arrow Famous light slit experiment
Arrow All the particle accelerator experiemnts!
Arrow CRT experiment to discover the properties of electrons

You simply can't have science without going back and testing your ideas.

Archeology is not natural science? Is that a further demarcation, one that you did not mention before? What is the difference between natural and unnatural science? If you refer to peering through a telescope at whatever nature wishes to dish up and noting it down in mathematical format as experimentation, then so be it. But that is not how it is done in biology, there we can actually observe, manipulate etc the subject directly.

No it only has to be observed, you don't need to know the origin of electricity to determine properties of it.

Sorry, no. Once again you attempt to evade the problems inherent in seperating evolution from it's origin by referring to something totally different.

You don't need to know the origin of life to study the mechanisms of life.

Why not? You saying so does not make it so. If you want to assert that nature and living creatures can create new information, you have to account for what the first bit of information changed by mutation and selected by nature looked like. You cannot describe what it looked like without going to the logically prior step, which was non-life. The origin of life is the first of a series. The terms of reference for the first in a series can never be totally irrelevant in establishing a sequence or series if you establish that no such first term of the series could exist when constrained by the same terms of reference. (Thanks GeorgeR)

No if you read those textbooks it is clear that an origin of life is not necessary for the study of life.

Then why do they include it?

You must argue the results of the experiments, not on a philosophical ground. Science is not in the business of professing all knowledge. It is in the business of discovering the natural world.

This is laughable, you tell me to argue the results of the experiments, not on a philosophical basis, then you follow that with two philosophical statements! How do you want to get to a method for performing science if not from philosophy? Where do you think the scientific method came from? And please provide a logical proof for your statement that the reliability of the theory is not impacted by disputed axioms. How can you even start to set up experiments if the boundaries are not known? Those boundaries are either self-evident or well-known. The same applies to evolution vs the origin of life, before you can explain the experiments, the assumptions must be self-evident or known.

And you're point is?

See above. First in the series etc....

I think you're confusing the issue, the question is simply "how does life work".

Just because you don't understand the question, it doesn't mean that I'm confusing the issue. You wish to draw a clear boundary, because of a definition of evolution that excludes the origin of life. Therefore you have to account for when life begins and non-life ends, so that you can describe how life works so as to establish the characteristics of the first in the series. You cannot logically assume the underlying premise (methodological naturalism), that is assumed to fully valid after the first event, if it fails to be workable during the first event.

What do you mean?

Exactly what part of: "How do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not?" do you not understand? You hold to the scientific method, don't you? What experiments do you perform to show whether something should be part of biological evolution or not? Or is it an arbitrary decision? Is it all life? What part of life? Is human consciousness studies part of it?

I don't understand your train of thought. You have failed to show how the theory of evolution requires an explanation for the origins of life.

No, the fact that you don't understand it does not mean that I have not shown it, it means that you do not understand it. You have failed to show why evolution should not include the origin of life. All you have done is replied with totally unrelated analogies, patronizing one-line dismissals and assertions.

August wrote:Stop equivocating evolution with other scientific areas to make it appear to be valid science....Gravitational theory has nothing directly to do with the origin of any life forms.

I distinguish between macro and microevolution by virtue of the evidence at hand. Microevolution has evidence, macroevolution does not. And no, asserting that given enough time, there is no difference between the two does not work. You adhere to the scientific method, so show the evidence in compliance. For macroevolution to necessarily follow as an extension of microevolution, it must overcome the internal limitations of it's own mechanisms, mutation rates, adequate time for gradualism, reasons to assume and constrain non-gradual effects, and the restrictions imposed by real world physical and chemical laws, and correspondence with external evidence.

What limitations? Give me an example of macroevolution and for instance is the evolution of a cat and a dog from a common ancestor sconsidered macroevolution?

August wrote: Archeology is not natural science? Is that a further demarcation, one that you did not mention before?

A natural science naturally is a study of the natural world. Archaeology is the study of past cultures by studying remains of such cultures. I suppose it could be a natural science albiet a very specific one, but I beleive and I think you would agree that the goal of this profession is more about historical, cultural, and social interests and not about fundamental workings of the universe.

August wrote:What is the difference between natural and unnatural science? If you refer to peering through a telescope at whatever nature wishes to dish up and noting it down in mathematical format as experimentation, then so be it. But that is not how it is done in biology, there we can actually observe, manipulate etc the subject directly.

As long as study is methodical and testable through experiments then it's ok.

August wrote: Sorry, no. Once again you attempt to evade the problems inherent in seperating evolution from it's origin by referring to something totally different.

Ok, why do I need to know the origin of life to measure changes in gene frequencies?
Do I need to know the origin of life to observe the effects of introducing africanized bees in South America?
What about analyzing the genetic code of penguins and eagles? Do I need to know the origin of life for that?

August wrote: Why not? You saying so does not make it so. If you want to assert that nature and living creatures can create new information, you have to account for what the first bit of information changed by mutation and selected by nature looked like.

So I need to know the origin of written language to observe the publications of new literary works?

August wrote:You cannot describe what it looked like without going to the logically prior step, which was non-life. The origin of life is the first of a series. The terms of reference for the first in a series can never be totally irrelevant in establishing a sequence or series if you establish that no such first term of the series could exist when constrained by the same terms of reference. (Thanks GeorgeR)

You thinking of a stack, think arrays or linked lists.

August wrote:

No if you read those textbooks it is clear that an origin of life is not necessary for the study of life.

Then why do they include it?

Obviously when one is discussing life one ponders the origins of life, as you have demonstrated clearly.

August wrote:

You must argue the results of the experiments, not on a philosophical ground. Science is not in the business of professing all knowledge. It is in the business of discovering the natural world.

This is laughable, you tell me to argue the results of the experiments, not on a philosophical basis, then you follow that with two philosophical statements! How do you want to get to a method for performing science if not from philosophy? Where do you think the scientific method came from? And please provide a logical proof for your statement that the reliability of the theory is not impacted by disputed axioms.

What do you mean?

August wrote: How can you even start to set up experiments if the boundaries are not known?

Again what do you mean?

August wrote:Those boundaries are either self-evident or well-known. The same applies to evolution vs the origin of life, before you can explain the experiments, the assumptions must be self-evident or known.

Again I don't follow. Are you saying because we don't know the origins of life we are not allowed to experiment with rats?

August wrote:

I think you're confusing the issue, the question is simply "how does life work".

Just because you don't understand the question, it doesn't mean that I'm confusing the issue. You wish to draw a clear boundary, because of a definition of evolution that excludes the origin of life. Therefore you have to account for when life begins and non-life ends, so that you can describe how life works so as to establish the characteristics of the first in the series.

Are you not clear on what is alive and what is not? Anything which reproduces and changes can fall under evolution, this includes languages and ideas.

August wrote:You cannot logically assume the underlying premise (methodological naturalism), that is assumed to fully valid after the first event, if it fails to be workable during the first event.

Anything which doesn't work naturally can't be tested by experimentation so falls outside the realms of science.

August wrote:

What do you mean?

Exactly what part of: "How do we experimentally prove what is part of biological evolution and what is not?" do you not understand? You hold to the scientific method, don't you? What experiments do you perform to show whether something should be part of biological evolution or not? Or is it an arbitrary decision? Is it all life? What part of life? Is human consciousness studies part of it?

Hmm, this is an interesting question. I don't know. I'll have to give this some thought, however I don't think an answer to this needs to be found in order to continue studying the chemistry of life.

August wrote:

I don't understand your train of thought. You have failed to show how the theory of evolution requires an explanation for the origins of life.

No, the fact that you don't understand it does not mean that I have not shown it, it means that you do not understand it. You have failed to show why evolution should not include the origin of life. All you have done is replied with totally unrelated analogies, patronizing one-line dismissals and assertions.

I dind't mean to be patronizing, and besides analogies It is very difficult to explain. Hmmm how about, the study of life doesn't require an explanation of the origin of life because we don't know about the origin of life yet we are still able to study life.

Does that suffice?

If I came across as patronizing I apologize, this was not my intent, only intellectual discourse.

BeGood,

Darwin never tried to divorce the origin of life from the origin of species. Isn't your attempt to do so a form of backpeddling away from those elements of science that evolution doesn't fit?

Could you go into more detail on how the Cambrian Explosion fits within an evolutionary model? Thus far it sounds like you are saying that reproducing sponges had some proteins fold and BANG there's a shark. BANG there's a crocodile. That by the way is how the fossil record shows it. You have nothing between the sponge and advanced life. Nada. And you don't have anywhere near enough time in the Cambrian Explosion for evolution to fit. The more scientists research the Cambrian Explosion, the shorter it gets.

Also - isn't it a myth that embrios of different animals are very similar at early stages? That seems pretty central to your description but it just isn't true. Scientists have thrown-out Haekels diagrams for several reasons - one being that they weren't early embrios but rather mid-term embrios. Haekel used mid-term embrios because THAT was when they looked most similar. Next he very carefully selected the embrios knowing that the vast majority of embrios didn't look much like each other at all. Finally, he took too much artistic freedom in his drawings, making them look much more alike than they really do. Scientists today believe that embrios start out very different and finish very different, and as the point at which they are most similar (actually least dissimilar is probably a more accurate way to put it) is in the middle of their development you can't really get there in an evolutionary format.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

Darwin never tried to divorce the origin of life from the origin of species. Isn't your attempt to do so a form of backpeddling away from those elements of science that evolution doesn't fit?

Could you go into more detail on how the Cambrian Explosion fits within an evolutionary model? Thus far it sounds like you are saying that reproducing sponges had some proteins fold and BANG there's a shark. BANG there's a crocodile.

There were no sharks or crocodiles in the cambrian rock.

Wall-dog wrote:That by the way is how the fossil record shows it. You have nothing between the sponge and advanced life.

No that is not the cambrian explosion, there is no advanced life, only primative precursors to todays life.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html
In otherwords without using evolutionary terminology all you would have is a collection of worm like creatures.

Wall-dog wrote: Nada. And you don't have anywhere near enough time in the Cambrian Explosion for evolution to fit.

I think you are overestimating the dramatics of this. It is only with todays classification system that you can see a significance in the cambrian life.
It's difficult to explain in a brief manor, so if you want to continue in the cambrian explosion thread, I would be delighted.

What we have is that the feature demarcating many of todays phylums can be found during this period. For example Chordata includes birds, mammals and reptiles they are classified together because of a dorsally running nerve chord. This doesn't mean that there are birds mammals and reptiles in the cambrian rock. What it does mean is that there is a wormlike creature found in the rocks which possesses a nototchord.

It is only under the theory of evolution where this becomes significant. the ancestor of all notochords are in these rocks. Along with the ancestors of all arthopods, among other phyla.

But this is expected, over time small differences become large, a taxonomic class is in essence decendants of a common ancestor. The larger the taxonomic class the older the descendant.

So lets use families as an example we have 5 couples. Lets call them phyla and lets not let any of the couples children intermarry other families.
10 generations later we divide each family into 5 and use the same rules against intermarraige, lets call this grouping Class, and so on.

Wall-dog wrote:The more scientists research the Cambrian Explosion, the shorter it gets.

Yes, but again you seem to be misunderstanding the exact impact. Yes diversity does appear suddenly, but nothing life modern life.

Wall-dog wrote:Also - isn't it a myth that embrios of different animals are very similar at early stages?

No it isn't a myth, what you may be confusing things with is the idea that evolution repeats itself with the development of an organism.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html

However mutations which effect development will obviously effect the later form of life. Also similarily related organisms will follow similar developmental stages. The relationship between ontegeny and phylogeny is still being worked out to this day.

Wall-dog wrote:That seems pretty central to your description but it just isn't true. Scientists have thrown-out Haekels diagrams for several reasons - one being that they weren't early embrios but rather mid-term embrios. Haekel used mid-term embrios because THAT was when they looked most similar. Next he very carefully selected the embrios knowing that the vast majority of embrios didn't look much like each other at all. Finally, he took too much artistic freedom in his drawings, making them look much more alike than they really do. Scientists today believe that embrios start out very different and finish very different, and as the point at which they are most similar (actually least dissimilar is probably a more accurate way to put it) is in the middle of their development you can't really get there in an evolutionary format.

This sounds like propoganda.
Yes scientists have thrown out haekels ideas rejecting that the various stages represent the evolutionary stages of a specific organism, however there is a relationship between development and morphology. I can go into it in more detail if you wish, however it will be a bit complicated and time consuming. But in short all development goes through a blastula and gastula stage which led to this misconception. Remember that proteins guide development, so a change in a sequence in a developmental protein can change the developmental process and the final morphology of an organism. So the relationship between development and common descent is not direct as Haekle suggested but one would seem to exist.
http://raven.zoology.washington.edu/embryos/

Your arguments ar painfully circular. Your reading of evidence sounds like the talking points of the National Center for Selling Evolution. It is very simple, macroevolution cannot be extrapolated from microevolution at this time. Perhaps in the future it will be. Also, you referenced spontaneous generation as a proof for evolution??? The research in this field has continually shown how it is mathematically impossible.

Dan