Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 21, 2014, 15:54 (3867 days ago) @ David Turell

&#13;&#10;> > Matt: But we can point to the fact that we&apos;ve never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I don&apos;t know how you can claim that. A new predator is in a sense environmental but really a new organism on the block, to be fought with. New oganisms are new challenges. And how do you know that some species don&apos;t arrive de novo without a challenge?&#13;&#10;> -My thinking here is hinged on exactly that &quot;in a sense&quot; thinking you parsed here. A new predator in a new territory is an alteration of the environment for the prey species--AND an alteration of the environment of the predator species. -I think you need to explain a little more precisely what you&apos;re really targeting here. At face value, the same way I know I&apos;m not a brain in a vat: I have no reason to believe I&apos;m a brain in a vat. However my reasons for believing a new species won&apos;t just arise &quot;de novo&quot; are manifold:-1. It has never been observed. <--That&apos;s a big one. &#13;&#10;2. We know that evolution intrinsically linked with reproduction, which we have observed, and we have also observed allele shifts within populations. &#13;&#10;3. Because of 2, and combined with the fact that the fossil record clearly shows a progression of accumulating more complicated structure, we have very strong reasons to believe that at one point all life shared a single common ancestor.-Because life is iterative, and provably generational, it stands to reason that we shouldn&apos;t expect a cat when a two dogs mate. -&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh&apos;s paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> The yeast are sort of multicellular, as they are single celled bunched together. It is a simplistic form of some sort of multicellular beginning with a large stretch of imagination.-Really, then what about the symbiotic thesis that stands for how we grabbed mitochondria? And the way our intestines work with our flora, it pretty much means precisely that one strategy for survival is many, different communities of organisms working together in tandem. E.O. Wilson has argued extensively that Eusocial behavior exposes organisms to a whole new plateau of evolutionary development that wasn&apos;t possible before. -> > &#13;&#10;> > >And we still don&apos;t know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. &#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > Madtt: And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> You are quoting pure speculation. -No, I&apos;m quoting theory that&apos;s used in actual research:-http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g84-038-This particular paper recreated in the lab precisely what was observed in nature, demonstrating that not only is that definition of speciation valid, its testable. Something lacking in any alternative you&apos;ve presented. -> > &#13;&#10;> > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you&apos;re talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation &quot;we don&apos;t have a fossil for every form in-between!&quot;&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist&apos;s guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.-Except in certain clear-cut cases, such as the progression of horse fossils.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"