evolution discussion with faith

One of the most famous applications of ToE, is of course in devolping a natural history of life on earth. That gets a lot of attention on this forum so I'll jump past it.First off (and easiest to explain) is anti-biotics. We observe that bacteria populations become resistant to some chemicals which previously killed them. We could just flick from one chemical to another until we run out. OR we could apply the ToE which gives us a possible reason why.Hypothesis (derived from ToE): Random mutations of the genome can produce small populations within populations that are resistant to certain drugs. If we select out those which are not resistant, there will be only the resistant strain left, which will grow and we will be back to square one.Solution: Rotate the anti-biotic used so a resistant population finds it more difficult to get a foothold.

Well not quite. The practical application is in its developing. Its about as practical as egyptology or other history so divorced in time from our present as to be not directly useful. However, it is interesting, and it is the pursuit of knowledge...and inline with this thread, it is a practical application of ToE - even if you think history itself has no practical use. Didn't say it did, the ToE basically says that populations change due to random mutations of the genome and selection pressures acting on said population. If you apply that idea, you are applying ToE. Quite right, it is simple biology. However, if we want an explanation as to how it works, and a solution as to how to prevent the problem, we can turn to ToE.Without ToE all we see is that populations of bacteria become resistant.We have no explanation as to why. Without knowing why we cannot implement solutions (rotating anti-bacterials). We could stumble upon the solution accidentally, but it is more efficient to apply ToE. That's basically the ToE. If nobody disputes it then we're all happy...of course the ToE provides a little more detail than that, but in essence that's it. Indeed, we could discover such things about antibiotics through pure experimentation, but it is far more efficient (and thus quicker, cheaper and better for hospital patients/farmers etc), to apply the ToE and understand WHY. It has become my opinion that creationists accept the ToE, they simply disagree with the natural history that has been developed using it since it contradicts with the history of their Holy Scripture. I have, however, demonstrated that antiobiotics research, and the principle of rotating antibiotics to prevent resistant strains gaining a foothold is a practical application of ToE. If it is your opinion that this isn't 'everyday science' then so be it. Once we agree on whether or not my example is a practicle example of ToE we can see if there are others.

Well, if you change that to

quote:

---

This is only all about imperfect replication and selection...

---

Then you've hit the nail on ToE. The Theory of Evolution is so obvious, so glaring, its difficult to imagine it wasn't known at one time isn't it. That's all it is, imperfect replication leading to heritable traits and selection. That's the theory in a nutshell.Your problem isn't with the Theory of Evolution, its with some of the conclusions drawn using it which contradict your interpretation of what the Holy Bible sets down as the natural history of earth.

I'm not proving ToE to you Faith, honest. I'm simply stating that the concept you have grasped IS (in essence) the ToE. If, at any time, one was to apply that concept, one is applying the ToE. That's doesn't prove ToE, and I never implied that it did. What does the ToE say? It says that the reason why populations change is because random genetic change and selection pressures change them. In the situation we are examining we have a population that changes (becomes resistant) and we need a reason why. The ToE gives us a reason why. It might be the wrong reason, but the ToE gives us a reason nevertheless.Do you agree that ToE gives us a reason as to why our population of bacteria has become resistant to our antibacterial agent?Now we have a reason, we can develop a solution that combats it. What are the mechanisms that bring it about, Faith. Would they be random mutations in the genome and selective pressures? That is the what the Theory of Evolution is. What processes are you referring to that are nothing to do with the ToE? The principle of mutation and selection is part of the ToE. Which is why evolutionists get baffled. The ToE is all the processes. If you accept all the processes you accept the ToE. Its that simple. I don't follow. How is a definition fueled by these processes? The ToE is a theory on how populations change, more specifically how allele frequencies change in a population. You accept that allele frequencies change, you accept how they change. Since you accept the phenomenon (allele frequencies change) and the theory that explains that (random genetic mutations coupled with selection processes) you accept the ToE which is the aforementioned theory. Which is fine. You believe there is a certain genetic limit. Not going to argue that here, if you believe that you believe that. It is like saying 'I accept the Theory of Gravity which says that spacetime bends but I don't accept that it can bend so much as to form a black hole'. You're still accepting the ToG but you believe it has limits. Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss the practical applications of ToE. At least that was the impression I got from your Message 15 and Message 18, if you want to stop discussing the practical applications of ToE, that's no problem, you can discuss the applications of other theories instead, or whatever else. I'm trying to appreciate it, but I'm having difficulties as to how somebody can accept the theory, but reject it. To turn to Theory oF Relativity, if I said that I accept that spacetime bends, gravity is acceleration, the speed of light is constant, and the mass and speed of other things is relative to observer...but then said that I rejected the Theory of Relativity, people would be very confused. Let us pretend I was a Relativistic scientist. If you said that the Theory of relativity was superfluous to REAL science, would that not be denigrating me as a scientist? You are denigrating evolutionary biologists, bioinformaticians, and their kin when you say that they don't their field is superfluous to real science. It is a BIG mistake, you're right. If you have this knowledge (variation and selection) you have the ToE. If you want to call it something else, that's fine, but the rest of the world calls it ToE and its probably best you do likewise.This is like saying that knowing about bacteria causing disease is useful knowledge but you don't need the Germ Theory to have this knowledge. Excellent. Should I reiterate that these processes by which populations vary are commonly called ToE? Populations vary, right? This means that populations evolve. Evolve doesn't mean heading towards something (it used to, but common usage has changed that), simply 'change' or 'vary'. How do these populations vary? What causes is this variation? One theory is that random mutations of a heritable entity (or a 'genome') coupled with selective pressures leads to this variation.If you want you can call this theory the Theory of Variation. Everyone else calls it the Theory of Evolution. What's in a name? A theory by any other name would explain the same. I'm curious as to how you would define the ToE, and how it has co-opted these principles of variation and selection. If the ToE isn't the theory that describes the principles of variation and selection, what the heck is it?Here is my basic definition

---

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how allele frequencies in populations change. The explanation it puts forth is that heritable variations (for example, random mutations in the genome) are acted upon by a selective process (some variations are selected out of the gene pool, some remain). This selective pressure is commonly natural selection, though an artificial selection is possible if conscious intervention is applied.Corollary:
Assuming a stable population size, and that each organisms produces more offspring than itself then with a suitable selective pressure this can lead to a population becoming better adapted within that environment or niche.

---

If the above is the Theory of Evolution, then this Theory explains why our population of bacteria are getting resistant to antibacterials.This could be seen as drifting off topic, but I'd really like to know what you think the Theory of Evolution actually is...otherwise how would we know a practicle application of it when we see one. To help you along, I'm going to finish off with "what a theory is": Wordnet:

quote:

---

well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

---

quote:

---

a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

---

American Heritage Dictionary

quote:

---

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

---

This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 01:40 AM

It hasn't, I can assure you. Here is a site that discusses Mendelian type genetics in context of the ToE. The definition changes with new information. There are many different ways of wording the theory, but they mean largely the same thing: Random mutation/Natural Selection -> Change of Allele Frequencies in a population. Impefect replication simply means that the inheritance process doesn't copy part of the genome in a perfect manner. ACG is replicated to ATG, that is imperfect replication where perfect replication would be ACG being replicated to ACG.Anytime ACG is replicated in any other way than ACG, that replication wasn't perfect.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 01:34 AM

Point 1) is not under dispute.
Point 2) might be. You may respect some science and some scientists, but you hold evolutionary bioligists and their kin to a different standard, which could be viewed as disrespectful.

Disrespecting most science, yes that is disproved. However, you may disrespect some part of science. If you have no disrespect for this work, then you respect at least some evolutionary biologists. Likewise you also respect other biologists who are working from the Germ Theory of Disease, whether or not you see that the Germ Theory of Disease is of any use.The Germ Theory tells us why we get certain diseases (bacteria) which leads us to the solution -> use antibiotics to fend of said diseases.The Theory of Evolution tells us why said bacteria gets resistant to said antibiotics over time which leads us to the solution -> rotate usage of antibiotics so the bacteria doesn't have time to adapt.I think your issue is that its so glaringly obvious to us 21st Century types, that it doesn't always strike us that we are using a Theory when we do some things. After all, we don't have to think about why bacteria get resistant, its practically taught as an observed fact, but in actuallity its simply the Theory of Evolution in one of its most basic forms.It seems obvious to me that the sun is central, but that is the essence of the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System, its just been taught to me since I was a kid so it seems obvious to me, and doesn't feel like its a Theory, when it technically is.

Excellent. Indeed, you guys don't have a name for your theory of variation and selection...why don't you use the already existing name? I assure you, its the same thing. Creationism is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution - it agrees with it, Creationism has issues with the scientific hypothesis of origins and natural history.

It doesn't suggest it per se, it simply doesn't postulate a limit where none is observed. That is to say, it only talks about, and explains things in terms of observed phenomena.Basically ToE is the theory we use to describe how populations change. If you want to you can try to apply this to describe how massive changes in populations could occur, or little change.Perhaps there are some laws that prevent or hamper this change, who knows?At the end of the day, the theory hypothetically says, "Oh, you have a a population that has changed, let me explain how that happened", if you throw rubbish data at it, you'll get rubbish information back. In your case you may think it is rubbish data to throw dinosaur populations changing to such an extent they become birds. Not a problem, the ToE is still valid, you just don't the population in question has changed in that way and as such any conclusions drawn from the ToE are fallacious. Earlier you said that the work done with regards to ToE was superfluous to real science. That is quite disrespectful of quite a large discipline within science.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 05:50 PMThis message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 09-January-2006 05:54 PM

I added a quick edit or two there, sorry about that.But yes, of course the vast majority of science isn't about one single theory in one discipline. However, holding one theory to a different standard than other theories is...well its something and it aint good, right? I believe Herepton (Ray) would call it special pleading. 'All other theories are fine, but the ToE is a special case'.

Still, it strikes me that your problem lies with the theory of common descent, rather than the theory of evolution. Evolution makes no proclamations about genetic limits or indefinite progressive change. It is simply used as an explanation for why a given population has changed over time. The Theory Common descent, derived using the Theory of Evolution says that all life came from a small common set of populations, and the Theory of Evolution can be used to explain how these populations diverged to where we are.No massive scope, just 'if you have a population whose allele frequencies have changed, here is a theory as to how that happened...'. If the theory of common descent is wrong, we can still apply Theory of Evolution to things in its current form.