Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. No scientific value whatsoever. Certainly, any little value it would have - in telling us something that we're already pretty sure about - is more than wiped out by the considerable ethical breach this experiment represents.I mean, what you're talking about is as bad as the Nazi experiments on Jews. And even those had tangible scientific benefits that inform us to this day. Your experiment doesn't even give us that. It's an ethical abomination. What it would enhance would be the claims of those who would suggest that no principle of human dignity is safe from those godless atheistic scientists, who will have others pay any price for even the slightest - or no - gain in scientific knowledge.We're scientists, but we're not monsters. You've laid it out. You seem to already know how it could be done. What exactly are you asking?

I'm so dumb. All credit goes to my wife who correctly pointed out something so obvious that I can't believe I've missed it so far - evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from chimpanzees.That's a pretty crucial point. Manually engineering a human from an ape would prove something that has absolutely no relevance to evolution.

Look is you say "unlimited plasticity" I have to assume that you actually mean it and aren't instead referring to something more like Gould's idea that evolution is highly contingent and that if we "replayed" the story of life on Earth we would get something rather different from what we see today. However true it is (and that is one big argument in itself) it isn't the same thing.In fact given your references to the limits of selective breeding I am certain that you DID mean exactly what you said. Because that certainly isn't about the long-term potential of the distant ancestors of the tetrapods.And what are you going to do with near-human "chimps" ? Here are some pretty serious ethical concerns which have nothing to do with anything as questionable as "inherent chimpanzeeness". Given that increased intelligence is presumably a major goal the ethics of experimenting on them becomes murkier and murkier. Experimenting on chimps alone is questionable and it gets more and more ethically dubious as the experiment advances.Worse, what would it tell us ? The creationsits would simply point to the genetic engineering and artificial selection as intelligent intervention and claim that that invalidated the experiment. Surely it would be better to simply reconstruct a plausible series of mutations on paper - that at least is less ethically dubious and achieves the same aim. If there is no theoretical barrier to known mechanisms accounting for the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor why resort to ethically questionable experiments ?

Why do you keep bringing up ethics?That's not the point of this discussion. Throughout this thread, I've been consistently trying to note the emergence of science from past influences, some of which are more pre-science (as others have correctly pointed out and corrected me on), but much of which is also pseudoscientific inspiration and paradigms.I think this very discussion is very relevent to the whole distinction between science, pre-science, and pseudoscience. Where have I suggested that we experiment on humans?I've consistently been asking about how one would "hypothetically" genetically alter a chimpanzee after several generations in order to produce a human being -- and not experimenting directly with humans to begin with.Any human being that would be reproduced biologically would be the end result of the project -- not the beginning. Now Michael Godwin is being invoked -- and still no theoretical answers are being proposed to answer my hypothetical questions? I've never suggested that scientists were godless athiests trying to rip human dignity from homo sapiens. This is entirely your mischaracterization of my questions in regards to a potential hypothetical experiment that could potentially verify definitively that humans could indeed be reproduced biologically from a lesser primate. That's not fair crashfrog.I'm not the one claiming that man having evolved from lesser primates is a fact. You are.I've simply tried to imagine an experiment which could be conducted in order to lay out a concrete plan to verify that man could be descended from a lesser primate (such as a chimpanzee).In order to envision this, I've laid out some genetic problems for the scientifically minded to contemplate and answer on the microbiological level -- and I've asked this because I've already admitted that I simply do not know how this could be done.I'm simply asking for help in order to understand this possibility better.

I tip my hat to your wife. Not quite though. It would still concretely verify that a human could be descended from a "lesser primate" -- which would still be a boon to evolutionary science in my opinion.

That is what I intended. Yes. Well, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I've reread message 96 and can see where there would be misunderstanding. In short, I think there is good reason to suspect there are limits to which evolution can evolve a species in the fossil record we see in real life (not the hypothetical replay which could result in "unlimited plasticity" by introducing a totally new set of initial parameters).Does this make it clearer? Nothing -- because I wouldn't actually perform this experiment.However, if somone actually "did" this, I would expect them to be granted citizenship in whichever country they were born -- and that they would move on to live as "relatively" as normal a life as we try to. But I'm not asking about the ethics. I'm simply asking how it could be done. Regardless of the methods, it would still tell us that man can be descended from lesser primates. Moreso, it would be a fact of science that man can be descended from lesser primates -- and it could no longer merely be dismissed a "theory". THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. Then why don't you start to simply reconstruct a plausible series of mutations here on this thread -- like I've asked for since this "experimental" topic was introduced in message 101? I'm getting tired of those who continue to invoke Godwin's Law when all that I'm asking for is a hypothetical reconstruction of a plausible series of mutations.Do you understand what I'm requesting?Edit: Added information from post 96, clarified certain points, corrected some spelling, referenced diferent posts.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-25-2005 06:50 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-25-2005 07:18 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-25-2005 07:19 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-25-2005 08:14 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-25-2005 08:21 PM

Because you asked for reasons not to do the experiment. You dismissed the animal rights angle, but you haven't even acknowledged the abhorrent human cost. Ridiculous. You're going to have arguably human products throughout the process. Certainly you're going to have half-human-half-chimp individuals, who may or may not be entitled to human rights and dignity. Who will determine their status? If they do turn out to be human, who will take care of them? They'll certainly possess significant mental and cognitive deficiencies stemming from their part-chimp genetics. What will become of these man-ape abominations? For that matter, who takes care of your final, end-stage, total human? Where did I say you did? I realize you're not taking that position. But for those that do, this disgusting experiment would confirm their view, and they would in fact be right - the only people who would dare attempt this "experiment" or think it was a good idea would be someone motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty. It's already been definitively verified. The genetic, biogeographic, and taxonomic evidence is more than conclusive. Your experiment tells us nothing we don't already know - less than nothing, because the proposition "humans evolved from chimpanzees" is not an evolutionary position. If you want to know how modifications to the genes of organisms are performed, just search the web. Wikipedia will lay it all out for you. Exactly what questions do you have for us?

In what way is a chimpanzee a "lesser primate"? What makes you think that a change from chimp to human is a step up anything?

You think there is good reason, but you don't actually have any good reasons.What you erroneously label "the fallacy of the inversed slippery slope" is actually a epistomological method called "induction", where generalities are generated from repeating specifics. It's not a slippery slope to suggest that what is happening now will continue to do so; it's an entirely valid induction, and the basis of scientific knowledge.Simply pointing out that induction doesn't guarantee an outcome is insufficient basis to propose a limit; that's a fallacious argument from ignorance. You'll have no success trying to build an argument on the holes in empiricism.

Sorry, MD, Acquiring Genomes is a book. If you have a reasonable library nearby, it should be on the shelves. The authors are Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan (yes, the son of that Sagan). With a forward by Ernst Mayr - who although truly disagreeing fundamentally with the overall premise, does agree that there's damn good science in it and a lot worth taking away. And I think that's true.{edited to add reference to the book and the original request}This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-25-2005 09:49 PM

crashfrog, I don't think I've ever asked for reasons why the experiments should not be done. It's alway been a question of "how" it could be done.Observe: And later in the same post: Then: Again: And again Consequently, when ethical issues were brought up, I responsed: Later, I echoed these thoughts again: Later, I was even more specific about this: And again later: In the same post I noted: Please, can you show me where I asked for reasons not to do the experiment?The only thing that I can see that would be remotely considered a request for reasons not to do the experiment would be something like this: But, even then, I'm not asking you for "reasons not to do the experiment".I'm asking you why you feel there would be "be no scientific value to an experiment such as this if it were succesful..."You've interjected morality as one of two main reasons apparently not to do this -- and forced it into the conversation at that. That it wasn't really evolution at all seems to be the second reason.While I nonetheless agree with you on the morality issue (since I wouldn't do an experiment like this -- which I've consistently repeated), coming back to the point, I'm still just asking for someone to simply reconstruct a plausible series of mutations here on this thread -- like I've asked for since this "experimental" topic was introduced in message 101? ok. fine. You are correct. It's unethical. So now you're saying that I'm motivated out of a sociopathic love of cruelty for suggesting that an experiment like this would verify that humans could be descended from lesser primates?Anyway, can we just get on with the hypothetical experiment (the one which we are not actually conducting but are simply trying to theorize how this "could" be done)? Really?Which primate species was the common ascenstor of all the primates (including us) we see today 40 million years ago?We know that monkeys appear on the fossil record about 36 million years ago. We also know that apes appear on the fossil record about 25 million years ago.We know that the appearance of gibbons as separate lineage occurs about 10 million years ago. We know that the appearance of orangutans as separate lineage occurs about 8 million years ago. We know that the appearance of gorillas as separate lineage occurs about 7 million years ago.We see the appearance of hominids about 5 million years ago. We see the appearance of Australopithecus afarensis about 4 million years ago. Consequently, we also see the appearance of bipedism about 4 million years ago.Over 3 million years ago, we see that genus Homo and genus Australopithecus diverge. From here we see the appearance of Homo habilis about 2 million years ago. We also see the appearance of Homo erectus less than 2 million years ago. Interestingly, we see the control of fire over 1 million years ago.The last of the australopithecines goes extinct over 1 million years ago. The appearance of Homo sapiens is observed about 500 thousand years ago. The apearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens is observed about 100 thousand years ago. We also observe the burial of the dead about this same time -- around 100 thousand years ago.What we don't see, however, is exactly how evolution did it. We know that evolution was responsible for this, but we don't know how it did it. And I've summed up the evidence of what we know chronologically above (this chronological information was gathered from The Descent of Man Supplemental Lecture (97/05/04 update) by Stephen T. Abedon). But the evolution of Homo sapiens from Hominidae is an evolutionary position.Plus, it is often noted that chimpanzee DNA is the closest species DNA to human DNA. The sequence of the human genome and that of the chimpanzee differs little more than 1% by some accounts. The most closely related living organisms to humans are the chimpanzees. This is especially true for chimpanzees species known as bonobos, or pigmy chimpanzees.In fact, the oldest members of family Hominidae is considered to have diverged from the common human-chimpanzee ancestor. Admittedly, family Hominidae can simultaneously be considered to be monophyletic and to exclude all of the chimpanzees. However, it still seems like a good place to start for me on a theoretical level -- at least based on what species we have available today. crashfrog, I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. I've just explained myself so many times -- as clearly as I could -- and you are still asking me this question?*sigh*See you later guys.

In regards to these questions, I'll just tip my hat and move on. Fair enough.But I still think that there is the very real danger of making the inductive illogical falacy otherwise called a hasty deduction. I'm not saying this with 100% conviction as you are. But we all do seek to classify things we experience in order to help make decisions about similar items we meet in future. This generalization is a form of simplification and it always results in some distortion.crashfrog and everyone else, you guys can continue with the debate if you wish. I'm sure that you'll have much more to add to my above thoughts. Or maybe you'll just declare victory.Myself, I'm not really claiming to have won anything in this thread -- although I have learned a lot. After spending all this time on this thread, however, I'm not sure if anything's really been accomplished or if anyone was really listening to what I had to say for that matter.I find that rather frustrating.

The material you quoted clearly indicates that you did indeed refer to limits to actual change and therefore referred to plasticity rather than contingency. Please stop confusing the issue.Now I don't see how your experiment could be done without reversing any inconvenient genetic changes in the chimp line and then trying to duplicate the changes that happened in the human line. Which means you would already need a plausible pathway for both lines of evolution, to even do the experiment. Yet that in itself would be sufficient counter to the assertion that humans could not be descended rom "lesser primates".However assembling such a pathway on paper is NOT the experiment you asked for - it is a theoretical exercise. It does NOT involve ANY genetic manipulation. It does not require even your first step of "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)." Clearly a paper exercise is NOT what you had in mind.As for your suggestion that I take on the task of doing such an exercise - a major scientific project which would take years - even with the funding and expertise which are not even plausibly available to me I just have to laugh. Obviously I can't start to do it.As for this:

quote:

---

I'm getting tired of those who continue to invoke Godwin's Law when all that I'm asking for is a hypothetical reconstruction of aplausible series of mutations.

​

Do you understand what I'm requesting?

---

Yes. You're tired of people pointing out the unethical nature of the experiments YOU suggested. So you want to a) falsely accuse them of calling you a Nazi and b) pretend that you didn't ask for major genetic engineering experiments on chimps to produce a "human" species.Here it is again from Message 101

quote:

---

...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.

---

Did I say that? For one who constantly bristles that his arguments are being twisted around, you sure do a lot of it yourself. Cantius, in the early Eocene. Random mutation and natural selection. How else would it do it? Well, Homo sapiens is in Hominidae, so any time two people have a child, that's showing that humans arise from hominids.I still don't see how forcing a non-evolutionary outcome through means that bear no relation to evolutionary mechanisms proves anything about evolution. Closest extant species, yes. You're asking what steps you would need to take to perform your experiment. The techniques of genetic manipulation are immediately accessable to anyone who cares to look. It's no great secret.

Well, yes. Hence, scientific conclusions, based as they are on induction, are tentative. Well-known consequence of empiricism.But there's no factual conclusion you can come to from that other than "our scientific conclusions are tentative." Trying to build a factual argument on that - there's a limit to genetic change because we don't know for sure that there isn't - is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Then we're all winners. Seriously. Isn't that the only meaningful accomplishment? We were listening. We just didn't agree. Don't you think that highly intelligent people can have all the facts and still disagree on something?