Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Do Evolutionists Accept the Fundamental Principle of Sci
Forum Professor
Joined: 04 Mar 2009 Posts: 1334 Location: UK
Shubee wrote:
Curiously, the only experiments to test the theory of evolution versus the theory of devolution confirm
devolution.
Still haven't given up?
Generally, they are the same theory. The only difference (as far as
I can see from what you've said) is that in devolution, DNA becomes
increasingly damaged over time and cannot become more complicated by
evolution. This is something you have to provide evidence for: nobody
will take your word for it. _________________
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Do Evolutionists Accept the Fundamental Principle of Sci
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 2098
Shubee wrote:
"The
fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the
sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P.
Feynman.
Curiously, the only experiments to test the theory of evolution versus the theory of devolution confirm
devolution.
"Experiment" usually means coming up with a hypothesis that
predicts something so specific that it would be a remarkable
coincidence if observation were to match it and it were false. It's
always possible, of course.
And no, that is not the only experiment that has been conducted. Most
of them were conducted on bacteria instead of complex life forms, but
they are pretty conclusive. Heck, the theory is actually used as a
means to design drugs these days, and with great success.
However: there are certain conditions that will lead to "devolution"
instead of evolution. For example, if the environment is too gentle,
substantially easier to survive in than the organism's previous
environment, then a sort complacency effect can occur where valuable
survival traits start to diminish.
The ideal condition is one where there's a very high birth rate, and
the environment is so harsh that a very small percentage of the
offspring are surviving long enough to reach maturity and have their
own offspring. (In other words: the ideal condition is one that's so
horrible that we would consider it unthinkable if it happened to us.)
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Do Evolutionists Accept the Fundamental Principle of Sci
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 Aug 2008 Posts: 1558
kojax wrote:
Shubee wrote:
"The
fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the
sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P.
Feynman.
Curiously, the only experiments to test the theory of evolution versus the theory of devolution confirm
devolution.
"Experiment" usually means coming up with a hypothesis that
predicts something so specific that it would be a remarkable
coincidence if observation were to match it and it were false. It's
always possible, of course.
And no, that is not the only experiment that has been conducted. Most
of them were conducted on bacteria instead of complex life forms, but
they are pretty conclusive. Heck, the theory is actually used as a
means to design drugs these days, and with great success.
However: there are certain conditions that will lead to "devolution"
instead of evolution. For example, if the environment is too gentle,
substantially easier to survive in than the organism's previous
environment, then a sort complacency effect can occur where valuable
survival traits start to diminish.
The ideal condition is one where there's a very high birth rate, and
the environment is so harsh that a very small percentage of the
offspring are surviving long enough to reach maturity and have their
own offspring. (In other words: the ideal condition is one that's so
horrible that we would consider it unthinkable if it happened to us.)
Is this discussion in the physics forum because Shubee was booted out
of some more appropriate place for a discussion of evolution ?
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Do Evolutionists Accept the Fundamental Principle of Sci
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 30 Jun 2007 Posts: 704
DrRocket wrote:
Is this discussion in the physics forum because Shubee was booted out
of some more appropriate place for a discussion of evolution ?
Not anymore it isn't. Off to join its brethern in Pseudo. _________________ "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone
Shubee,
there is no experimental evidence in support of your idea. I've given
you opportunities, I've openly invited you to provide more evidence.
You have not. And now I see you're avoiding me by posting about a
biological topic in the Physics forum, which is simply poor debating
form.
Any further pushing of this idea with a lack of evidenciary support, and I will recommend that you be banned. _________________ Man
can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on
no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst
of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than
the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: Will you allow mathematicians to judge the argument?
Forum Freshman
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 Posts: 49
paralith wrote:
Shubee, there is no experimental evidence in support of your idea.
The experiment with Escherichia coli that
I cited
is evidence. Furthermore, there are many such experiments, the usual
outcome being an intrinsic reduction in fitness, and there are no known
examples of mutants that are unquestionably intrinsically healthier
than the ancestral strains.
paralith wrote:
And now I see you're avoiding me by posting about a biological topic in the Physics forum, which is simply poor debating form.
It is simply my belief that mathematicians and physicists
understand science better than biologists and that we should let them
mediate the dispute.
paralith wrote:
Any further pushing of this idea with a lack of evidenciary support, and I will recommend that you be banned.
Will you allow mathematicians to judge what is evidentiary support?
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: Will you allow mathematicians to judge the argument?
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 06 Jun 2007 Posts: 2167
Shubee wrote:
The experiment with Escherichia coli that
I cited
is evidence. Furthermore, there are many such experiments, the usual
outcome being an intrinsic reduction in fitness, and there are no known
examples of mutants that are unquestionably healthier than the
ancestral strains.
No it is not evidence. Because there is no such thing as intrinsic fitness. Fitness is by definition a relative
measure that is specific to the demands of the current
environment. The study you provided shows an increase in fitness. Your
other measure, that of efficiency of molecular machines, also does not
support your idea, because while some of the machines were allowed to
become less efficient due to a decrease in selection pressure, others
become more efficient. There is no reason to conclude a net decrease in
efficiency.
Shubee wrote:
It is simply my belief that mathematicians and physicists understand
science better than biologists and that we should let them mediate the
dispute.
Regardless of your belief, they do not (in general) understand the
mechanics of evolution and inheritance as well as biologists do. Thus
they are not qualified to judge evidence on that subject anymore than
your florist is qualified to figure out what's wrong with your car.
Shubee wrote:
Will you allow mathematicians to judge what is evidentiary support?
If you can find mathematicians with a background in biology and
evolution (and there are plenty of them out there), then of course. But
as far as judging whether or not allowing further discussion of your
idea in this forum is a good idea, that judgment lies with the
moderators and admins of this site. And since you are following your
old pattern of going in circles and ignoring previously stated
rebuttals to your tired old arguments, I am now officially recommending
your ban. Please feel free to appeal to the administrators if you feel
I am being unfair. _________________ Man
can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on
no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst
of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than
the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges
for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
