Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 91 of 198 (201027)
04-21-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-21-2005 8:41 PM


my pleasure
I said i "could". This is to big a job for a single threaded post. One would have to read
(EMAYR page 536 Harvard Press 1988 Toward a New Philosophy of BIOlogy) backwards from Kant's reference to human/organism sex and then write it forward. There are easier things to deal with in the mean time while others figure out how to do it also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 8:41 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 92 of 198 (201030)
04-21-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
04-18-2005 4:02 AM


crashfrog writes:
Like I said I don't particularly contest your position, but I don't find it particularly earth-shattering, either. In regards to the creationism debate, creationists aren't simply advancing their doctrines as an inspiration for scientific inquiry, but as a replacement for it.
Good point.
This is important to re-emphasize: I'm not interested in replacing the theory of evolution with creationism. I'm also not interested in attempting to remove evolution from school board curriculims. I'm not interested in trying to disprove the theory of evolution at all.
In other words, I think I'm simply trying to say that we should continue to attempt to prove the theory of evolution true to the fullest extent that science can discern -- cautiously.
Instead, I'm encouraging those involved in the theory to take a closer look at the the "source" of the materialist underpinnings that have often been associated with it -- such as Huxley's "pseudo-scientific" thoughts that religion and faith should be mutually exclusive.
I've pointed to many pseudoscientific inspirations throughout this thread, and noted how they've inspired people to engage in real science (or proto-science as others have rightly asserted).
But the point still remains, pseudoscience has played a significant part in inspiring people to look further fore answers.
My risky prediction is that, as new evidence becomes clearer, the theory of evolution will in the future, even as practiced within the secular biological sciences, become more akin to a theory of theistic evolution.
Specifically, I think that, over the next 200 years or so, tests will eventually be constructed that will enable us to actually simulate natural selection and mutation in the lab to a level much higher than we can currently conduct.
However, in doing so, I think that, if indeed tests like the ones I'm picturing are able to produce these phenomena rapidly, it will also be revealed the limits of natural selection and mutation (even if done for millions and millions of years).
I also think, and this may be more of a guess than a flash of insight, that string theories will continue to be developed (with the creation of more powerful particle accelerators), and that the basic first levels of "actual evidence" for thier existence will start to come to light.
If this happens, I also think that some of the initial patterns observed within string theories will bear an uncanny resemblance to the "missing links" in the hypothetical future I predicted for evolutionary tests.
As such, I suspect that there will be a merger of evolutionary thinking with string theory -- and that this link may point more to an extra-dimensional explanation for transtitional morphologies than the traditional "materialistic" explanations we are currently still testing.
In this sense, I suspect that the "current" status of evolution (which attempts to explain all life from purely physical mechansims) will ultimately be seen about as wrong as Galileo stating that the sun is the center of the universe.
Ergo: In this risky prediction, the smaller claims of evolution will be left confirmed (as we already know they are), but the larger claims might be found to be simply wrong in a big way -- and requiring an extra-dimensional agent more than the physical mechanisms themselves.
I don't know what to call it. Maybe: The Theory of Hyperspatial Evolution or something like that.
However, prior to something like being accepted (if true), there will most likely be many who are resistant to it -- because of their pseudoscientific "inspiration" of trying to account for all life by purely materialistic means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2005 4:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by contracycle, posted 04-22-2005 9:43 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2005 10:59 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 95 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2005 3:10 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 198 (201132)
04-22-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-21-2005 9:24 PM


MD:
quote:
As such, I suspect that there will be a merger of evolutionary thinking with string theory -- and that this link may point more to an extra-dimensional explanation for transtitional morphologies than the traditional "materialistic" explanations we are currently still testing.
Such influences would remain material influences. If an extradimensioanl facotr is going to come into play, it is going to introduce things like superposition and nesting to the material effects we examine. Which is to say, it will be information that orders action. But, such information will remain material.
Materialism is much more sophisticated than just "stuff" or just "what we can see". It helps you cut through bullshit. For example, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? Of course: becuase sound is a compression wave moving through air, and all those things still exist even without a human observer. By remembering to examine the material basis, we avoid getting bogged down in issues as to what "sound" is in a philosophical or metaphysical sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 9:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 198 (201170)
04-22-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-21-2005 9:24 PM


Instead, I'm encouraging those involved in the theory to take a closer look at the the "source" of the materialist underpinnings that have often been associated with it -- such as Huxley's "pseudo-scientific" thoughts that religion and faith should be mutually exclusive.
I guess I don't see the merit of that investigation, except as historical curiosity. For instance, to get back to the Stradonitz example, he may have been inspired by a dream, but when we teach about benzene in class and how we know about its ring structure, we reference x-ray crystallography, not his journals. His dream isn't relevant to the prosecution of scientific endeavor except as trivia.
If this happens, I also think that some of the initial patterns observed within string theories will bear an uncanny resemblance to the "missing links" in the hypothetical future I predicted for evolutionary tests.
Uh, well, ok. We'll make a bet. As Burns said to Smithers, if all that happens, I owe you a Coke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 9:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 198 (201215)
04-22-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-21-2005 9:24 PM


quote:
My risky prediction is that, as new evidence becomes clearer, the theory of evolution will in the future, even as practiced within the secular biological sciences, become more akin to a theory of theistic evolution.
This change would make evolution a pseudoscience. As soon as you require untestable mechanisms (ie supernatural mechanisms) to support a theory then it is a pseudoscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 9:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 12:04 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 96 of 198 (201337)
04-23-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Loudmouth
04-22-2005 3:10 PM


Yes, but this brings me to some aspects of the theory of evolution -- the minor and major things that I mentioned before.
For example, I've often heard it claimed that there's no reason to think that there are any limits to what natural selection and mutation can accomplish -- and people often point to the fossil record as being evidence of what it can accomplish.
However, some tests done in the 20th century seemed to at least suggest that species, although certainly amorphous to some extent, weren't necessarilly fluid to the point claimed by evolutionary theories.
For example, as George Sim Johnston notes, since we do not see major morphological speciation via gradual changes in the fossils, one of the only other place to look is breeding experiments.
But here the evidence apparently goes against Darwin.
Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience:
George Sim Johnston writes:
If they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to type.
The most famous breeder of all, Luther Burbank, actually found no evidence of the unlimited plasticity of species, which Darwin's theory demands, and posited the "Law of Reversion to Average."
Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruitflies and concluded that biologists had to give up Darwin's idea that an accumulation of "micro" changes creates new species.
If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly -- albeit, a new species of fruitfly (which confirms the minor claims).
Goldschmidt published a famous list of seventeen items -- including teeth, feathers, the poison apparatus of the snake, and whalebone -- and challenged anyone to explain how they could have evolved on a step-by-step basis.
Goldschmidt pointed out that if natural selection were the mechanism for major changes in species, then every intermediate form must be useful to the organism. This problem of explaining the usefulness of incipient organs -- five percent of an eye, for example -- has been a persistent problem for Darwinists.
As one biologist puts it, "Since the eye must be either perfect, or perfectly useless, how could it have evolved by small, successive, Darwinian steps?"
Otto Schindewolf, the German paleontologist and anti-Darwinist, rejected out of hand the idea that transitional forms could be found or even imagined:
Otto Schindewolf writes:
It should be emphasized that there is no way that there could be transitional forms as they have often been envisaged and required....A placenta cannot be absent and present simultaneously....
Schindewolf, who died in 1971, was largely ignored in the Anglo-Saxon countries, while Goldschmidt was subject to a savage campaign of vilification for suggesting that evolution must have involved the appearance of "hopeful monsters" -- that is, sudden genetic freaks which somehow manage to function - rather than minute gradations sifted by natural selection.
But scientists like the late Gould of Harvard have apparently claimed that both men were on the right track after all, that the story of evolution is one of rapid, dramatic changes followed by long periods of millions of years of stasis.
But in "slightly" downplaying the role of natural selection, Gould, Stanley and other scientists are still stuck with the problem of providing a plausible mechanism that can explain how the bacteria and blue-green algae that appeared on this planet over two billion years ago randomly mutated into the highly complex fauna and flora we see today.
Some people have actually concluded that modem genetics apparently shows that DNA programs a species to remain stubbornly what it is. In one of the most recent observations, in one very rare example, some researcher actually noticed DNA correcting itself when a mutation was occuring -- something which I supect will be observed more often as our ability to observed changes on this level become more accurate.
In one sense, the claim of evolution is one of unlimited plasticity of species. But while modern techniques have certainly unlocked the mechanisms of evolutionary patterns on the genetic level, it still remains a tenacious claim that there is no limit to what can be accomplished over time.
Sometimes I've heard others saying something to the effect of, "Well...we have no reason to suspect there are limits." They might even say, "You've yet to demonstrate any proof of how it could be limited."
However, as I've pointed out above, there are at least some good observations to date to conclude there may in fact be limits to the plasticity of species.
Furthermore, appealing to the claim that one hasn't provided evidence for limits actually seems to be an inversed proportional slippery slope argument leaning in the favour of natural selection.
According to the Atheism Page Web: Logic and Fallacies, a slippery slope argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.
For example:
Athiesm Web Page writes:
If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana.
The Nikzor Project explains this argument in similar fashion, going into even greater detail.
Also known as the Camel's Nose:
Nikzor Project writes:
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
The Nikzoe Project goes on to give the following clear examples of the slippery slope argument:
Nikzoer writes:
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Obviously, neither the Atheistic Web Page nor the Nikzor Project are employing this slippery slope argument to question evolutionary theories.
However, as I've said before, when I hear someone say, "Well...we have no reason to suspect there are limits. You've yet to demonstrate any proof of how it could be limited." -- it sounds a lot like an inversed proportional slippery slope argument in favour of natural selection to me.
When I say inversed proportional slippery slope, I mean that it is a positive claim instead of a negative one -- as the slippery slope argument is more "traditionally" used to cast the subject in an unfavorable light.
Likewise, I also use the term inversed proportional slippery slope to mean that, unlike its "traditional" usage, it is being used to prove that something has already happened in addition to claiming that it will continue to happen in the future.
My point is not that the theory of evolution should be discarded -- because I really think that would be stupid. I've also encouraged everyone to study it deeply because I believe that it is the best scientific theory going that will explain our origins (I stand corrected: I meant "explain the speciation of all life").
My point is, in noting how the greater claims of science in the past have often been carried over "erroniously" by the previous pre-scientific paradigm, that it is not a stupid thought to think there may still be evidence unearthed which may in fact disprove the "greater claims" of the theroy of evolution.
Coming back to the term "pseudosceince" (or pseudo-science as I've been typing it throughout this thread), you guys are one hundred percent correct. Astronomy, alchemy, and the search for perpetual motion machines are all pre-sciences (or proto-sciences if you prefer) that emerged from pseudosciences.
However, the claim that I've been holding to that pseudoscientific inspirations can and have contributed to genuine scientific inquiries still remains -- and this is my central point.
In looking at the theory of evolution, it seems to me that there is a potential pseudoscientic inspiration behind its experimentation -- the pseudoscience of believing that only science itself can answer all our questions.
This may be true. It has certainly answered many questions for us. But there may be limits to it as well.
But even so, their "pseudoscientific" inspiration is highly indebted to scientists like Boyle, Newton, and especially Bacon -- all scientists that believed that their faith (now considered pseudoscientific) demanded that they examine the universe objectively in light of what God was revealing though his "apparently" well ordered design.
To grasp hold of the scientific method while utterly ignoring the "world views" of those that developed it seems to be a tad bit arrogant to me. I say this because the development of the scientific method may have had more to do with their "world view" than the information that lay hidden and awaiting our discovering it.
Guys, even Darwin was a Christian at one time -- altough he drifted toward agnosticism as he aged.
Consequently, even though many have said that they already admit that this is true (the inspiration part of pseudoscience that is), they quickly dismiss it as being totally irrelevant to the discussion -- and only a minor quirk not to be taken seriously.
I'm wondering why this is so.
As one writer comments, modern science has grown out of Christian soil. This has been documented by many people, not necessarily Christians themselves. It was stressed by such writers as Alfred North Whitehead, the widely respected mathematician and philosopher, and J. Oppenheimer, who wrote on a wide range of subjects related to science after becoming director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1947.
More importantly, it has been amply substantiated within the new discipline of the history of science by scholars such as Duhem, Crombie, Jaki, Nebelsick and Kaiser.
People can argue over the semantics of the word pseudoscience all they want. I'm pretty much done with that anyway -- its negative connotation has well served its purpose (even though I was trying hard to display it in a positive light).
But if someone wants to go one step further and take a serious look at the relationship between Christianity and science, then I would simply offer this link...
Exploring Christianity | Page not found
I think it's something worth reading.
Catch you later guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Loudmouth, posted 04-22-2005 3:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2005 9:03 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2005 11:43 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 198 (201384)
04-23-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 12:04 AM


Saltation as proposed by Goldschmidt is almost universally rejected by evolutionary biologists because it has severe theoretical problems. Especially in sexually reproducing species. Punctuated Equilibria as proposed by Gould and Eldredge is not a saltational theory. Please don't confuse the two.
Evolutionary theory neither proposes "unlimited plasticity" nor does it argue that we should be able to reproduce long-term evolutionary change in vertebrate species in a few tens or even hundreds of years simply be selective breeding. Selective breeding allows us to work on the variability already present within the species, and to work faster than ordinary evolutionary rates. But it it does not speed up the rate at which new variations enter the population - and that is the limiting factor.
As for your earlier suggestion that string theory might be involved I really have to see that that is almost certainly false. The elements that distinguish string theory come into play in the domains of cosmology and high-energy physics. You would do far better to look into our growing understanding of developmental processes ("evo-devo") and work done on the mechanisms of mutation (see Caporales Darwin in the Genome) to see where evolutionary theory is heading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 12:04 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2005 12:30 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 101 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 3:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 198 (201416)
04-23-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 12:04 AM


If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly
Likewise, if you have a huge mutation in an organism, it's still an organism; a huge mutation in a eukaryote is still a eukaryote; a huge mutation in a cynodont is still a cynodont; a huge mutation in a mammal is still a mammal, etc.
Evolution doesn't predict that species will change their "essence" or jump to another branch of the tree; it predicts that the words we apply to a group of organisms will contain more and more species in that group over time. Pointing out that the decendants of fruit flies are always fruit flies is both an argument from incredulity, a strawman, and mistaken support for some kind of species essentialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 12:04 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 99 of 198 (201430)
04-23-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
04-23-2005 9:03 AM


I would like to add that if one is interested in fairly radical hypotheses in evo biology - and that if true would have significant impacts on our understanding of evolution - but that still remain within the bounds of "science", one need look no further than Margulis et al's concept of symbiogenesis. Acquiring Genomes is a fascinating (albeit IMO far less than conclusive) expose of the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2005 9:03 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 1:40 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 100 of 198 (201462)
04-23-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Quetzal
04-23-2005 12:30 PM


Is there a link available? I would like to read this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Quetzal, posted 04-23-2005 12:30 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 04-25-2005 10:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 101 of 198 (201839)
04-24-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
04-23-2005 9:03 AM


Evolutionary theory neither proposes "unlimited plasticity"...
It does propose it in the sense that from primordial cells evolution can eventually produce the diversity of life we see today.
...nor does it argue that we should be able to reproduce long-term evolutionary change in vertebrate species in a few tens or even hundreds of years simply be selective breeding.
However, it does propose that nature should be able to reproduce long-term evolutionary change in vertebrate species in a few tens or even thousands of years by natural selection (which is nature's form of selective breeding) in combination with genetic mutations.
Has anyone ever tried to predict (or reconstruct) what our hypothetical prehistoric ancestor's DNA would've been like -- based on the information about genes that we have now about us and other primates?
Or, going several steps further in the other direction, has anyone ever delved into what it would take to artificially manipulate the genes of some other living primate today (say a chimpanzee) and attempt to make it more human with each generation.
Admittedly, this would be a large on-going undertaking involving several research fields and financial contributions. However, it would be interesting is they could use genetic manipulation to simulate mutations and natural selection in order to accomplish the following very quickly over many generations what would normally require millions of years:
1: Fuse two of the smaller chimpanzee chromosomes to genetically produce a new species that has 23 chromosomes like humans do (instead of 24 like chimpanzees).
2. Reduce the 23 kilobases of repeating DNA sequences on the chimpanzee telomere to 10 kilobases of repeating DNA like that of the human telomere.
3. Although 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’ between humanity and chimpanzees, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘modified.’ in some way. It would be interesting if genetisists could manipulate the chimpanzee generations so that the markers on these chromosomes would go in the same order as in the human -- the Y chromosome in particular would have to made into a different size and have many markers line up where ordinarilly they do not do so.
4. Genetically re-engineer chromosome 21 in particular so as to remove the large, non-random regions of difference between the two different types of genomes.
5. Determine the regions that might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage -- and attempt to reproduce them genetically as appropriate.
While certain animals rights groups might object to the genetic violation of these creatures inherent "chimpanzeeness", it seems to me that a project of this magnitude would certainly attract a large base of researchers. Instead of trying to clone humans, perhaps the better experiment is to try to produce humans via generations of genetically altered chimps.
On the one hand, athiestic scientists would probably love the chance to prove certain fundamentalist groups wrong when they say it can't be done. On the other hand, theistic evolutionists could then enjoy partaking in the creation of life as their Lord did ages ago.
Then again, perhaps people would simply find that it actually cannot be done after all. For that matter, if the experiment were succesful over a period of 200 to 400 years say (or longer), this would greatly reduce the potential time theorized necessary for evolution to transpire if indeed a "Divine Intelligent Agent" was guiding its course.
I'm not looking to debate anyone with this specific post. I would, however, simply enjoy hearing what anyone has to offer for something like this to actaully transpire. I may ask questions for clarification when reading over something that I do not understand -- but, again, I will not be seeking to debate with anyone on the ideas they offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2005 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2005 7:34 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2005 2:38 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 198 (201923)
04-24-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-24-2005 3:35 PM


It does propose it in the sense that from primordial cells evolution can eventually produce the diversity of life we see today.
That's hardly "unlimited plasticity." In fact the great similarity and lack of true novelty across the biological spectrum is a powerful indication of common descent.
While certain animals rights groups might object to the genetic violation of these creatures inherent "chimpanzeeness", it seems to me that a project of this magnitude would certainly attract a large base of researchers.
What on Earth would we learn from such an experiment? Furthermore why do it the hard way when we could simply take a chimp zygote, knock out its nucleus, and insert human DNA? What would be the functional difference?
I would, however, simply enjoy hearing what anyone has to offer for something like this to actaully transpire.
I guess I'd like it if you could clarify exactly what you think the benefit of this process would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 3:35 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2005 7:43 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 198 (201926)
04-24-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
04-24-2005 7:34 PM


clones?
you mean a {chimp\human} pseudo-clone? (as "dolly" was a pseudo-clone)
the mitochondial dna would still be chimp: do we know enough about the reproductive process of embyio to fetus to think this will work? is a chimp pelvic girdle big enough for a human head? or would C-section be required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2005 7:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:50 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 104 of 198 (201941)
04-24-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by crashfrog
04-24-2005 7:34 PM


That's hardly "unlimited plasticity." In fact the great similarity and lack of true novelty across the biological spectrum is a powerful indication of common descent.
Yes, but if one simply changes the parameters of the process of natural selection, one could end up with many different starting points.
The insistence that the "lack of true novelty across the biological spectrum is a powerful indication of common descent" is based on the assumptions that life could only arise as we see it today because of the conditions on the earth were the way they were.
Change the initial conditions, and one could end up with totally different "lack of true novelties" on an alien planet for example -- and these unique features might even be "totally novel" to our life-forms here on earth.
In other words, what you've just said sounds very similar to the Anthropic Principle that creationists often use to counter (unsuccessfully I might add) evolutionary claims.
What on Earth would we learn from such an experiment?
I already explained what it would display on a philosphical level.
On a scientific level, it would essentially prove that the greater claims of the theory of evoltion are a fact. In other words, humanity could say with 100% certainty that evolutionary mechanisms CAN produce what we're claiming they can produce -- and they would have perfectly documented evidence of it.
Do you have any suggestions on how this experiment could be done?
Furthermore why do it the hard way when we could simply take a chimp zygote, knock out its nucleus, and insert human DNA? What would be the functional difference?
Because this isn't proving that the greater claims of evolution are 100% certain -- unless, or course, one thinks that a human being was born immediately from a lesser primate without any intermedite stages.
Edit: Corrected spelling: added commentary to clarify points.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:04 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:12 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2005 7:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2005 9:11 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 04-25-2005 1:30 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 198 (201943)
04-24-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-24-2005 9:02 PM


On a scientific level, it would essentially prove that the greater claims of the theory of evoltion are a fact.
you would not get the "it just shows common design" issue settled

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:02 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024