Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 23:51 (4678 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 23:57

MATT: dhw,
> I uh...
> Well I have nothing really to add here. If you don't accept Natural Selection as I discussed it here, I can't really say anything about the subject. The only way to dislodge NS as the lynchpin is to demonstrate (as I said earlier) that creatures evolve without need of a stimuli. That's it. That's all you need to do.
> 
> ...you still have to face the fact that NS creates absolutely nothing. David, Tony and I keep hammering at this point (to which you consistently fail to respond) as follows:
> -You say Darwin's theory, but it's not Darwin's theory anymore. Reading David's book, and contrasting it with the understanding discussed by Massimo Pigliucci's book "Denying Evolution," David's argument can only be applied on the original Darwinian theory and not the modified one that Pigliucci presented, and that I learned in college. I've mentioned the Beta-Lactase experiment in which Barry Hall knocked out the gene that allowed a bacteria to digest lactose. A small population (that no longer had any recollection of lactose because of the knockout) modified a protein that allowed them to consume lactose again. This is an example of creation of a new function by random mutation and natural selection only. -The crux of my reading of David's book so far, is that I do not believe he is successfully attacking anything other than slow and gradual accretion. I still have alot of book left to go however!!!!-...
> I have half a dozen dictionaries, all of which offer very similar definitions of NS. Here is the Encarta one: "The process, according to Darwin, by which organisms best suited to survival in a particular environment achieve greater reproductive success, thereby passing advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations."
> -A really high-level analysis, but the one I learned in college is more detailed than that. I've discussed it before, but it is the process by which a species responds to its environment over time; including but not limited to, inter-species competition, intra-species competition, mitigation by intelligent individuals (human choice, for example), virii, prions... the list goes on. I still have much to learn about epigenetics. David reports a human mutation rate of 3.8/generation on average, but mutation isn't the only source of genetic change. Human cells "write back" to their own DNA, and even epigenetic phenomenon influence human development by virtue of some genes simply existing in the mother's ovum. With all the myriad stimuli available to an organism, I see no reason at all to assert that Natural Selection isn't enough; and no offense, but the theory I just described is the one taught at university, so I will side with THAT definition over yours. -> If you can demonstrate that evolution could function without these advantageous genetic characteristics, and that these advantageous genetic characteristics are PRODUCED by NS (as opposed to being passed on), you will convince me that NS is the lynchpin. That's it. That's all you need to do. 
> -Barry Hall QED.-> You have also ignored my response to your attack on David's "public" use of the word "theory", as opposed to the scientific use, which = "a theory that has been repeatedly verified by experiment". May I ask what experiments have repeatedly verified that humans can evolve from bacteria, or that changes in the environment can produce totally new species (as opposed to existing species adapting themselves)?
> -The inference of bacteria to humans is one you've already accepted; find me a better scientific (ie testable) explanation than NS and I'll buy it. -> (N.B. Like David, I believe that evolution happened, but I'm not convinced by certain aspects of the theory. My challenge to you here is to defend your scientific use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution.)-At present, there is no other serious scientific contender to Natural Selection. A theory is an explanation, but the explanation that wins is the one that explains the most amount of data. To say NS is insufficient also means that you need to find an explanation that explains everything that NS explains and more. (This is always under way!) There are gaps, and there are holes. I've always said that I accept the changing nature of science. But I also accept that there has been no other testable theory of evolution that has been as successful (despite its holes). David has stressed that he doesn't think NS will be destroyed--just like Newton's equations for gravity weren't destroyed by Newton.-Is NS the end of the story? Absolutely not. Is it the best we have? Absolutely yes. I've said before that there's a difference between acceptance and belief, and I accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, until the better explanation comes along. I don't think I have any more to say on this matter...-http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
In closing, again, the real problem isn't Natural Selection, it's abiogenesis...

--
\"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.\"