Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

[buffalo]

In the experiment there are 12 flasks being treated in exactly the same way. Only one can digest citrate.

Evolution is not predictable, nor repeatable, but hugh_farey says it is because it is misunderstood. That is his version of science. Unfalsifiable. and we just don’t understand it…

 

[edwest211]

buffalo, buffalo… How many times have we been told that “proof” is only for math?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Does this seem like the sort of thing you are looking for (emphasis mine):

“Most mutations are likely to be deleterious, and so the spontaneous mutation rate is generally held at a very low value. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory predicts that high mutation rates can evolve under certain circumstances. Empirical observations have previously been limited to short-term studies of the fates of mutator strains deliberately introduced into laboratory populations of Escherichia coli, and to the effects of intense selective events on mutator frequencies in E. coli. Here we report the rise of spontaneously originated mutators in populations of E. coli undergoing long-term adaptation to a new environment. Our results corroborate computer simulations of mutator evolution in adapting clonal populations, and may help to explain observa-tions that associate high mutation rates with emerging pathogens and with certain cancers” (Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli, by Paul D. Sniegowski et al.)

Or, with specific reference to your 31500 generations:

“The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.” (Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, ZD Blount et al.)

 

[buffalo]

Sorry Ed, I can do experiments in the lab that are observable, repeatable and predictable. That is the proof I am looking for.

 

[edwest211]

Me too. We won’t be getting it. Just speculation.

 

[ratio1]

not Really. I’ll explain what I’m looking for in a sec.

 

[ratio1]

For a briefer overview, try the Wikipedia article “Evidence of Common Descent”

I’m still reading through it. But for example the mathematical modelling section is interesting as it’s prospective evidence!!!
But again as a lay person why can’t they just tell us what we want?
The obvious question from a lay person is why not do a computer simulation from the primordial primate spit to chimpanzees and humans and see how long that takes and see whether that fits in with the existing data.
Same with the E. coli example. For a lay person to understand, need to to tie in with other data.
Otherwise these can be just adaptation rather than evolution?

See the problem is that evolutionists don’t take ID design seriously and they don’t even bother try to defend their theory. They just assume it’s true.
Perhaps I’m already an evolutionist by now if they don’t take such an arrogant attitude.

 

[buffalo]

Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins! (yup, that Craig Venter)

 

[benjamin1973]

See the problem is that evolutionists don’t take ID design seriously and they even bother try to defend their theory. They just assume it’s true.

That’s because ID violates the most basic principles of deduction. It starts with the axiom, and then goes in search of. . . the axiom. Evolution is an actual response to actual observe phenomena, not a made up defense of dogma.

That doesn’t mean Evolution is perfect. It doesn’t even mean that God didn’t willfully design life. But the way of going about things, and the reason for doing it, certainly aren’t in accord with the principles of scientific inquiry.

 

[ratio1]

It starts with the axiom, and then goes in search of. . . the axiom.

This pretty much describes evolution to me.
The starting axiom is we need to explain natural events without divine intervention. Then we observe natural events. Then we have to come up with a theory WITHOUT the possibility of divine intervention. Then we conclude the theory is true. Then we prove the original axiom is true.

My ideal scientific exploration is this
We start with the axiom we don’t know whether there is divine intervention or not. We look at the natural events. We deduce what is likely or unlikely by CAREFULLY evaluating statistics and data and mutation rates and PROSPECTIVE experiments results. We then decide what is more likely: evolution or intelligent design. Notice even if one picks one theory over the other, this is based on probability hence is not the truth. Both Evolution and intelligent deaign are unlikely to be proven or disproven. We have to make our best bet if you like. But I get frustrated when both sides make the claim that it is true and not merely a theory. Both evolutionists and creationists are elevating this matter to the sphere of religion rather than science. I am happy to “believe” in whichever theory which seems more plausible. At the moment ID is winning for me but as I said before I’m happy to learn real scientific data to support evolution.

 

[benjamin1973]

Not knowing isn’t an axiom. It’s a statement of fact. And we don’t have to come up with a theory without divine intervention. But if we’re going to bother putting forward a theory, it should actually be explained to fit the evidence, not vice versa.

 

[rossum]

Working backwards what was causing all the almost-but-not-quite-chicken to die out ?

The average number of mature offspring from each adult in the population dropped below 1.0 for a long period.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Next question:

Does the construction of RNA require enzymes? And where do these enzymes come from?

I mentioned ribozymes; ribozymes are effectively enzymes made from RNA rather than from amino acids. Basically the RNA world hypothesis says that a short self-catalysing string of RNA – a ribozyme – arose by chance; being self-catalysing it triggered the formation of more copies of itself.

It is possible that there were two catalyic RNA strings/ribozymes. String A catalysed the formation of string B, and string B catalysed the formation of string A.

Science is still working on the details of the RNA world hypothesis, for example Vaidya et al (2012)

The process was probably something like Spiegelman’s Monster, but with a ribozyme replacing the Qβ enzyme.

rossum

 

[rossum]

A proper theory should also be able to make predictions.

Evolution does. Here are three:

1. We will never see a fossil rabbit from the Precambrian: a species cannot appear before the earlier species it descended from.
2. We will never see a living pegasus: the change from quadruped to hexapod (six limbs) is too great, and wings with feathers are in the clade Aves, while horses are in Mammalia. Those two clades are too far separated for gene transfer.
3. “These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.” – Modiano et al (2001)

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The obvious question from a lay person is why not do a computer simulation from the primordial primate split to chimpanzees and humans and see how long that takes

As you will have seen from the literature, such a simulation would be extremely difficult to set up, given the lack of observable genetic evidence from the primordial primate and the observed variability of evolutionary speed at both molecular and cellular level. Evolution does not consist of winding up a clockwork mechanism and letting it go. As an effective model of the origin of living species, the ‘fact’ of evolution was satisfactorily demonstrated before any sub-cellular experiments had been carried out, and science is now concentrated on how it happens, not on whether it happens at all.

I put the word ‘fact’ in quotes, for two reasons. Firstly, every scientist knows perfectly well that although evolution fits the observed universe extremely well, nothing can be considered an absolute fact - the word denotes a satisfactory basis for further investigation, not a philosophical absolute. Science doesn’t do proof.
Secondly, every scientist knows that there are some people who do not accept evolution, and think that some other explanation fits the observed universe better. However, when any of these is compared to evolution, as they have notoriously been in the succession of educational court cases held in the USA, it has been found so inadequate as not to require further refutation. For this reason, there is no scientific research program, mathematical, chemical or biological, devoted to demonstrating that evolution occurs. We have moved on. We accept evolution and have no pressing need to establish it to ourselves over and over again.

Those who do not accept evolution will have to try their own experiments - but they never do.

 

[Metis1]

Evolution not required.

Bacterium and virus often mutate, therefore evolve, and much testing and analysis is done along this line, including looking for new methods to combat disease. Your yearly flu shot is just one example of this process.

BTW, here just one article to show you how it can and is used: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1800

Here’s another: http://www.evolutionary-research.net/science/intro/why-evolution-matters

 

[Hugh_Farey]

This pretty much describes evolution to me

Gosh, there is so much wrong with this it is difficult to condense into a short response.

The starting axiom is we need to explain natural events without divine intervention.

No. That is not anybody’s starting axiom. Firstly, ‘we need to explain something’ is not an axiom at all, but more seriously, no evolutionist has ever set out with that intent. If you think one has, name him.

Then we observe natural events.

No. The observation of natural events has been going on for millions of years.

Then we have to come up with a theory WITHOUT the possibility of divine intervention.

No. We don’t have to come up with a theory at all. It just seems a natural human impulse to want to account for observations coherently, in any way which fits them best.

Then we conclude the theory is true.

No. We either agree that explanation fits the observations, or we change the explanation.

Then we prove the original axiom is true.

Oh, dear, not ‘proof’ again. How can you challenge science when you don’t know what you’re challenging? This statement is literally meaningless.

[continued]

 

[Hugh_Farey]

My ideal scientific exploration is this

No, it isn’t. It can’t be. What follows does not resemble science in any way.

We start with the axiom we don’t know whether there is divine intervention or not.

That’s not an axiom.

We look at the natural events.

CORRECT! (First time)

We deduce what is likely or unlikely by CAREFULLY evaluating statistics and data and mutation rates and PROSPECTIVE experiments results.

I told you. You can’t deduce things from observations; you infer them. The next sentence is confused. First data is acquired, from observation of the natural world and prospective experiments, then statistics are derived from the data, then the statistics are evaluated to check whether they conform to the overall explanation for the natural world so far achieved. They are either discarded, or the previous explanation modified or extended, on the strength of the evaluation.

We then decide what is more likely: evolution or intelligent design.

Well, we could. Actually we don’t usually give fringe hypotheses which present no evidence and have been soundly and legally discredited the slightest consideration.

Notice even if one picks one theory over the other, this is based on probability hence is not the truth.

No. It’s not even based on probability, as we have no basis for assessing probability. It is based on which explanation fits the observations. best, and that’s all.

Both Evolution and intelligent deaign are unlikely to be proven or disproven.

Aaargh!! Proof again! Will you creationists never learn?

We have to make our best bet if you like.

We don’t have to. Lot’s of people don’t care. But we often do - and I agree that for the ;purposes of this thread it’s the whole point.

But I get frustrated when both sides make the claim that it is true and not merely a theory.

Be frustrated no longer! Science does not claim truth. (Actually some scientists do claim truth, but they don’t mean it, it is a shorthand for overwhelming consensus)

Both evolutionists and creationists are elevating this matter to the sphere of religion rather than science.

No. Neither Scientism, Evolutionism, or any of the Creationisms are anything to do with religions.

I am happy to “believe” in whichever theory which seems more plausible.

Fine.

At the moment ID is winning for me but as I said before I’m happy to learn real scientific data to support evolution.

Are you sure you want any real scientific data? Your current preference for ID is not based on any real scientific data, and you have rejected all the real scientific data I have offered.

Phew! Finished!

 

[Metis1]

Their faith in evolutionism is far greater than faith in Revelation. Yet they do not see the weak foundation they are standing on.

As repeatedly said, there is no such thing as “evolutionism” if it’s used as implying religion. Nor should the acceptance of the basic ToE negate one’s belief in revelation in any way.

Repeating the same old same old doesn’t negate the fact that the Church does very much allow for the acceptance of the basic ToE as long as it is understood God was behind it all. If you wish to ignore the Church’s teachings on that, then that certainly is your choice.

 

[ratio1]

Ok I’m actually beginning to see your point and also doing some research myself.
Thanks.
I will still hold on to my two most important points of view (for myself)

1. We should still seriously address legitimate challenges to the theory of evolution
2. We should make it easier for lay people to see the evidences of evolution and this should be continuously updated and revised as new evidence comes rather than put it in the “done and dusted” category. My suggestion would be to have a website where each step is outlined with info on 1. What we think happened. 2. Why do we think it happened that way and the evidence for it 3 estimation of time it took to happen. 4. Evidence for this time estimate.
   I would then be completely satisfied.
   For example can you tell me for each of the 4 points above
   A) primordial soup and formation of molecules
   B) RNA genesis
   C) DNA genesis
   D) cell wall/membrane formation
   E) enzymatic pathways that have feedback loops on itself
   F) primates to human
   Etc etc.

But before I turn into a full blown evolutionist, another question for you,
If evolution is true then one day we will evolve into another species, right? Will that species be under still the Catholic theological framework? Or do you believe the Second Coming must be before that?