H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Non-scientists do tend to grab a definition of science off the wall and then wander about trying to beat scientists over the head with it.
- Status
U
Usagi
Guest
Imagine that instead of being killed off fairly abruptly by us, the rhinos had instead faced a gradual change in their environment — climate change, less of their favorite food, whatever.
Gradually, it becomes tougher for the rhinos to survive. Some little rhinos don’t grow up to have little rhinos of their own. If this goes on long enough, they might still die out.
But if there are some rhinos that are different, and if that difference (previously just an occasional oddity that didn’t mean anything) helps them to survive better than the bulk of the rhinos … things can be different. Maybe the fringe group of rhinos has hide that’s better for the new average temperature, or is better at getting hold of a new kind of food, or just can survive migrating to a new home, just a little bit better than the other rhinos.
Over time, if the change in environment persists, there will be fewer and fewer of the once “normal” rhinos (that don’t survive as well any more) and more and more of the “fringe” rhinos (whose previously trivial difference now aids their survival just enough to let them go on where the others don’t).
An observer coming along many generations later would find only the bones of the original “normal” rhinos, and the formerly “fringe” rhinos would now be the norm. Give it enough time, and the animals the observer comes across might not much resemble the original rhinos, to the point that it takes active study to show that the two populations are related. This is how you get to the different steps in your whale picture.
B
buffalo
Guest
Scientific Method – Why is it important?
The scientific method can be divided into two primary categories: (1) empirical science and (2) historical science. Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. It finds its implementation in such disciplines as immunology, rocket science, molecular biology, etc. Historical science involves the interpretation of evidence and the deduction of past occurrences, which is normally based upon an underlying supportive paradigm.
Recognizing that every person has presuppositions that shape the way in which empirical evidence is interpreted is important. Theists and non-theists possess the same evidence; but that evidence is interpreted within a framework which corresponds to the individual’s respective worldview.
In its original form, ‘science’ could simply be defined as ‘knowledge’. Today, however, science – in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise – is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims – it is asserted – cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.
The scientific method can be divided into two primary categories: (1) empirical science and (2) historical science. Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. It finds its implementation in such disciplines as immunology, rocket science, molecular biology, etc. Historical science involves the interpretation of evidence and the deduction of past occurrences, which is normally based upon an underlying supportive paradigm.
Recognizing that every person has presuppositions that shape the way in which empirical evidence is interpreted is important. Theists and non-theists possess the same evidence; but that evidence is interpreted within a framework which corresponds to the individual’s respective worldview.
In its original form, ‘science’ could simply be defined as ‘knowledge’. Today, however, science – in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific enterprise – is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe with reference to purely naturalistic or materialistic causation. Science in this sense automatically rules out the notion of God because supernatural claims – it is asserted – cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific.
Scientific Method
Scientific Method - What is the scientific method? How do our worldviews shape the way in which we interpret evidence?
www.allaboutscience.org
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
That’s exactly what I mean. Grab, swing.
Missed.
Your source is an unscientific website rooted in creationism posing as the real thing. You may not be aware of that, so I’ll forgive you, but whoever made up and published that definition is a deliberate liar, whose single intent in doing so was to discredit evolution by dishonesty. Have nothing to do with him. He is an unrepentant sinner.
Missed.
Your source is an unscientific website rooted in creationism posing as the real thing. You may not be aware of that, so I’ll forgive you, but whoever made up and published that definition is a deliberate liar, whose single intent in doing so was to discredit evolution by dishonesty. Have nothing to do with him. He is an unrepentant sinner.
T
Techno2000
Guest
If there are 380,000 species of beetles and if it took 20 transitional stages of DNA mutations to build each species, that would mean there were 7,600,000 unknown species of beetles that walk the earth. All of these Beetles had to go through mysterious so-called environmental die out and DNA building changes. This just for the beetle species… do the math and you should see it just can’t work.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Each mutation doesn’t necessarily produce a new species. I have mutations you don’t have, but I suspect we are the same species.
T
Techno2000
Guest
But, every transitional form was a complete whole animal surviving and multiplying.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Indeed, but I don’t find it difficult to believe in 7million or so whole beetles. I suspect there are 7m or so beetles alive today.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Don’t go out too far on the limb, there, LOL.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I did phrase it with care 
B
buffalo
Guest
BTW - that’s exactly how I learned it way back when .
You have heard of the demarcation problem? Probably not.
Identifying empirical evidence
Identifying empirical evidence in another researcher’s experiments can sometimes be difficult. According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, there are some things one can look for when determining if evidence is empirical:
Code:
**Can the experiment be recreated and tested?**
Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?
Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?
Empirical Evidence: A Definition
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation.
T
Techno2000
Guest
It’s all the different kinds of die out and mutations that had to occur, that I’m talking about.
P
PetraG
Guest
Where did you get the idea that it had to take 20 transitional stages to get to each modern specieis?
(You realize that theoretically one species can give rise to several other species immediately without the original species ever dying out, right?)
By the current theory, birds and crocodiles are thought to have probably arose from the same ancestors. Birds changed a lot; crocodiles barely at all.
It is also thought that while beetles split into species rather easily, it isn’t an easy matter to kill a species off. They are extremely adaptable.
I’ve heard it quipped many times that if there is a nuclear holocaust there will still be the cockroaches left afterward. Wasps and fruitflies are also very resilient when it comes to surviving exposure to high levels of radiation. Scorpions, algae, bacteria and really small fish are given good odds, too. (Not that Las Vegas would survive it.)
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I have done the math. It has worked. Beetles evolved about 300 million years ago, but their big diversification began about 55 million years ago, from, say 30 genera to the 30 000 current genera today. This 1000 fold increase in diversity is stimulated by the fact that beetles often live in small, variable habitats, so that genetic variation does not remain dormant very long.
Now, spot your error. If each of today’s beetle species is successively descended from 20 ancestor species, then there would have been exactly the same number of species 20-ancestors ago as there is today, which clearly isn’t true. Speciation can, indeed, involve ‘ancestor’ species, but it also involves divergent species, one species splitting into two, and of course they both share most of their ancestors.
So, let’s have a look at some math. Average beetle generation time: say 2 years. Time to diversify into two species, or simply to evolve into a descendant species: say 10000 generations. After 10000 generations, a single beetle species has evolved into two different species, neither of whom can mate with each other, or the previous species. And so on. After ten million years, we have about 1000 species descended from the original one, and about 1000 extinct species. The math, in other words, allows for the millions of beetles alive today to have evolved five times quicker than they actually did. I wonder what slowed them up, don’t you?
Now, spot your error. If each of today’s beetle species is successively descended from 20 ancestor species, then there would have been exactly the same number of species 20-ancestors ago as there is today, which clearly isn’t true. Speciation can, indeed, involve ‘ancestor’ species, but it also involves divergent species, one species splitting into two, and of course they both share most of their ancestors.
So, let’s have a look at some math. Average beetle generation time: say 2 years. Time to diversify into two species, or simply to evolve into a descendant species: say 10000 generations. After 10000 generations, a single beetle species has evolved into two different species, neither of whom can mate with each other, or the previous species. And so on. After ten million years, we have about 1000 species descended from the original one, and about 1000 extinct species. The math, in other words, allows for the millions of beetles alive today to have evolved five times quicker than they actually did. I wonder what slowed them up, don’t you?
T
Techno2000
Guest
It was just a hypothetical starting point, dinosaurs to birds might be much more.Techno2000:
Where did you get the idea that it had to take 20 transitional stages to get to each modern specieis?
(You realize that theoretically one species can give rise to several other species immediately without the original species ever dying out, right?)
By the current theory, birds and crocodiles are thought to have probably arose from the same ancestors. Birds changed a lot; crocodiles barely at all.
P
PetraG
Guest
I do think punctuated equilibrium is a bit more likely than a strictly gradual mechanism of evolution. Very different animals can have very similar DNA and extremely small changes in DNA can make huge changes in external morphology. (Case in point: domesticated dogs.) Having said that, I’m not aware that there are specific testable proposals on the mechanisms of evolution. There are a lot of things that cause mutuations, but there is a lot about how DNA variations arise within populations that just isn’t known.
As a philosopher, you’re free to not buy it. If you want to venture into science, though, you’re minor league until you come up with a better explanation than what prevails or evidence that opposes current assumptions.
For instance, I found out this year that there is recently-discovered evidence of slight perturbations in the half-lives of some radioactive isotopes. We’re not talking switching from radioactive to stable and back, but just very small measurable variations due to external conditions. Still, it is an important finding. The second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. (How they calibrate work done in femtoseconds, I do not know.)
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m sorry to hear that. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
Rude. Off course I’ve heard of it. It’s an amusing philosophical debate which helps scientists get to sleep at night.
Good for Pennsylvania State University Libraries. How to spot if a colleague has actually made his results up. Very useful.
T
Techno2000
Guest
The gist of what I’m saying is there would be billions and billions of transitional stages to be accounted for every plant and animal species on the planet. Billions of die out and billions DNA building…do the math now.
B
buffalo
Guest
Slipping and sliding - all to always make evo fit. Now you are redefining things.
You have been exposed, to the posters here.
You have been exposed, to the posters here.
E
edwest211
Guest
Facts are facts. Americans aren’t far behind.
- Status