|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Key points of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have been trying to understand the way scientists use different words to help me communicate with them. Especially, words like fact and theory.
They don't use those words consistently.
I am trying to study that now. I have been reading a middle school textbook on evolution which I kind of like even though it probably isn't very accurate. It is only about 100 pages long and mostly pictures (pretty cool pictures) so it is easy to read. Yeah, I thought we agreed that that book was rubbish.
I have a college textbook I found on evolution but it is a lot longer with more words (big words like transcriptase), and it has less pictures. So if I start using big words about evolution, they are probably coming out of this book. I read the first chapter, and then went back to my little book. I consider that progress. If the word "transcriptase" was in the first chapter, your college textbook may be poorly organised. You may be trying to approach this from two wrong ends at once. One book is trying to explain the history of evolution to you, very badly, and the other book appears to be explaing the theory of evolution (i.e genetics) from the bottom up. Are they ever going to meet in the middle?
I am having a little difficulty in my mind understanding how all of these different eras, and ages, and index fossils came into being. I may have to go look in my big book to figure it out. It kind of seems like that jumbled up mess you are talking about. Yes, you need a theory to understand it. I don't know whether your "big book" will tell you anything like that, because books about evolution most often take the geological evidence as read. If I was going to write a textbook about evolution, I'd refer your questions about eras and ages and index fossils to a good textbook on geology, rather than trying to fit that all into my textbook. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes. The evolution event can be repeated, the result will be evolution. Evolution can be repeatedly tested in the present as well. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. What are you expecting? Enjoy. That was disingenuous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I am not sure that I understand the comparison between the observation of the effect of an electron in the present, and the inability to observe an evolutionary event in the past. The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present. And so can the effects of evolution, whether it happened a million years ago or yesterday, be tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time. Am I missing something here? Yes. You are missing the fact that the predictions of evolution can also be tested at any time. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
DA writes: Yeah, I thought we agreed that that book was rubbish. If the word "transcriptase" was in the first chapter, your college textbook may be poorly organised. I am very limited on any books that I can find on the subject of evolution in this part of the world. I found these only because an orphans' home a hundred miles from where I live received these used textbooks from America to sell to support their orphans. It is very doubtful that I could find a new book on evolution anywhere in this country, and that is including the university level. Most university students here do not buy books anyway. They can't afford them so they copy the parts they need. Copying copyrighted books is big business here. As for my college level textbook on evolution. It is titled "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman and Jon Herron. The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play. Actually, I have no problem understanding the mechanisms and process for the evolution of the HIV virus, or anything else for that matter. In addition to these books, I bought a lot of other textbooks from these people relating to different fields of science that I thought would be helpful. They were cheap so I said why not. I may not read them all but I figured I could use them for reference later. Here is what I have now: College Level Textbooks (Qty) 1 Evolutionary Analysis ("big book")5 Life Science or Biology 1 Early Life on Earth 2 Microbiology 1 Implantation Biology 1 Biology of Marine Life 1 Medical Parisitology 2 Chemistry 1 Principles of Biochemistry 1 Basic Neurochemistry 2 Genetics 1 Human Genetics 1 Experimental Methodology 1 Statistics (for Engineers and Scientists) 1 Logic High School and Middle School Textbooks 1 Evolution ("little rubbish book")3 Physical Science Unfortunately, I could not find any books on Geology. Maybe geologists don't sell their used textbooks. Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology. Other Books and Magazines At least 50 copies of PNAS from 2004 and 2005 that discuss topics like Binocularity and brain size evolution. I am really not sure that these are going to be very useful to me anytime in the near future. So I am serious about trying to find out what you guys believe to be true, and how you came to that belief, as it relates to the origins and diversity of life.
DA writes: Yes, you need a theory to understand it. I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
DA writes: Yes. You are missing the fact that the predictions of evolution can also be tested at any time. Let me try to explain where I am having difficulty here. If you test for the effect of an electron in an atom, you can reapeatedly test over and over again the same element and compare the results. Therefore, you can confirm your theory. Now let us say we are dealing with an evolutionary event that is supposed to have happened billions of years ago. I would agree that if the earth existed billions of years ago, and if life existed at that time then it is most likely that evolution as it is being observed today would have been taking place at that time. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons. First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case. That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present. It would appear that whatever evidence appeared in nature, no matter what direction was taken, it would never disprove or falsify the present theory of evolution. I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago. Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
RC Foster writes in his book:
quote: Coragyps writes: Off-topic for this thread, but that statement is absolutely bizarre. I really have not learned how to stay on topic very well. I appreciate the latitude that the Admins have given me in this area. I would think that Foster is trying to say that a naturalistic world view has had an effect upon Biblical Criticism. In other words, many are trying to separate the author (God) from the book (The Bible) by ignoring inspiration (because of their preconceived naturalistic view). I would doubt Foster is talking about biological evolution, and I would also doubt that at that time a Bible Professor had much knowledge of the subject anyway. Evolution was probably a much more divisive issue in the intellectual (university) world back in 1966 than it is today. If anyone wants to discuss this subject more than it would probably be best to start a new thread. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Of all the creationists on this website, I think you've done the best job of this (granted, you seem to not have definitively placed yourself as a creationist, though). I am definitely a Creationist. I believe with all my heart that God is the Creator of all that we see, and all that we are. Even the New Testament confirms this fact.
quote: However, I am also a truth seeker which means I will seek out the truth. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Evolutionary Analysis assumes a deep understanding of evolution and proceeds to illustrate how evolutionary scientists conduct research. You can't use it as an introduction to evolutionary concepts.
You also listed Life Science or Biology, which doesn't sound like the title of a real book. Did you mean Life: The Science of Biology? If so, this is the book you should start with. If you have time, read the whole thing all the way through. If you're short of time, read Part 5, The Patterns and Processes of Evolution. You say your Internet access is unreliable, but there are plenty of places on the web that introduce evolutionary concepts, let us know if you want links. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play. Ah, I see. That may not be so bad then. I'm sorry to hear about your book situation.
Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology. Like I say, they'll just take the results of geology as read. If it comes to that, they'll take evolution as read --- they'll tell you some of the stuff we know, but little about how we know it.
I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information? Is "creationist website" a momentary lapse of your mind? I wouldn't advise you to look at any creationist website for information about geology, because ... well, because it won't be written by geologists, and 'cos it won't contain information about geology. It'll contain statements such as "there is no such thing as the fossil record, there's just a lot of dirt". I'll see if I can look you up a good website about geology written by geologists. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons. First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case. This is such a jumble of misconceptions that I don't know where to start. I can find only one sentence in it that's both meaningful and true, and it was also irrelevant. I think for now I'll stick to your problems with the scientific method.
That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present. How can a forensic scientist say: "This man died of gunshot wounds", when this can't be repeated in the present? How would it help matters if such a hypothesized past event could be repeated? Suppose a forensic scientist says "This man died of gunshot wounds", and then "proves" it by bringing him to life and shooting him, and declaring: "Look, I've repeated it!" Would that prove that the man didn't (the first time around) die of cyanide poisoning? Of course not.
I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago. Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me? Yes. There is a comparison between the two. They are both hypotheses that lead to deductions that are testable in the present. The only difference is that one is too small to observe directly and one is too long ago to observe directly. The scientific method doesn't make a difference between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Percy writes: You also listed Life Science or Biology, which doesn't sound like the title of a real book. Did you mean Life: The Science of Biology? If so, this is the book you should start with. If you have time, read the whole thing all the way through. If you're short of time, read Part 5, The Patterns and Processes of Evolution. The list I gave were not titles of books but subjects. I have five college level biology or life science textbooks with the following titles and dates. Biology: A Custom Edition for Anoka-Ramsey Community College - 2005 - (Campbell; Reece)Inquiry Into Life - 2003 - (Sylvia Madder) Life: The Science of Biology - 2001 (Pruves; Sadava; Orians; Heller) Biology: Exploring Life - 1994 - (Brum; McKane; Karp) Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life - 1992 - (Starr; Taggart) Like I said, they were cheap, and I did not know which, if any, were any good. The Community College textbook is the newest and the shortest. I do not know how dated evolutionary material would be. I am very short of time so it would be best if I could spend my time wisely. Do you still recommend "Life: The Science of Biology?" It does not appear that the book I have is the same as the one you are talking about. Part Three is "Evolutionary Processes." Maybe your book is a different edition, this is the Sixth Edition. As for web links, sometimes I can spend five minutes or more just bringing up one page on your website. The fastest my link would ever be is about 6 or 7kbs. It is possible if one website has a lot of unbiased information that I could attempt to find a faster link and download the website. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
DA writes: Is "creationist website" a momentary lapse of your mind? No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid. (It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.)
Da writes: I wouldn't advise you to look at any creationist website for information about geology, because ... well, because it won't be written by geologists, and 'cos it won't contain information about geology. It'll contain statements such as "there is no such thing as the fossil record, there's just a lot of dirt". Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org?
DA writes: ... they'll tell you some of the stuff we know, but little about how we know it. Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Wumpini writes: Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?
DA writes: Yes. I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid. (It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.) Evidently. No, I can't recommend a creationist website that'll teach you geology because none of them will. It is not in their interest to do so.
Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org? While their statements about geology are usually sound and well-referenced, I don't think there's anything they've produced that could be used as a geology textbook.
Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business? No, I'm a mathematician. I have, however, read up on geology.
I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have. I take it that that was more dry humor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5794 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Wumpini writes: I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have.
DA writes: I take it that that was more dry humor. It made me laugh. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024