Faroe Islands mice. They’re visibly different from the species of mainland mice they descend from.
North American hawthorn flies. Some of them are now feeding on apple trees, and are reproductively isolated from the rest of the population due to breeding in different locations and at different times of year.
You won’t accept these, naturally. Not because they aren’t new species, but because you don’t know enough about what species are.
You want me to show you an example of something I have personally witnessed, that was part of a process that took thousands of generations and happened about 300 million years ago.
You also claim to know “what science says”.
Clearly you don’t, or you wouldn’t ask for the impossible.
I have backed that statement up both in this post and elsewhere.
You asked for “an example of a modern, visible change of species? (Not caused by human genetic engineering, or cross pollination) That is within the control of natural evolution.”
That’s what you were given.
You didn’t ask for an example where I personally observed every single animal.
That you are moving the goalposts from something you claimed didn’t exist but does, to something that is literally impossible to provide because no-one has lived long enough to have witnessed the entire process, is enough to write you off yet again.
You cannot visually prove your assertion. It is impossible. Therefore…
It is not using the Scientific Methodology.
(And you cannot complain if i refuse to accept it as valid.)
FYI
My position on this has not changed over the last 5 years or more, ad, if you truly followed and understood me you would know this. But, then again, we have never been on that sort of understanding, it has been more like a one way street of insults
If,you had seen my posts from the word go, you would also know that i have numerous qualifications in science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) but they are dated in the 1970s which, I acknowledge, puts some of my knowledge out of date, but, the basics of Evolution have not changed, only the thrust towards DNA mapping and comparison.
ToE (the macro version that claims to change a single cell to a human) has to be based on things other than visual observation because it all happened millions of years before such things were possible. The net result is that any claim of certainty is based on corroboartive data rather than impiracal data. Fossils give a snapshot of a life form but only inasmuch as it existed, Any ancestry or progeny is derived by the said DNA and (IMO) it does not prove that it happened by natural or supernatural means. But, as supernatural is not part of the scientific remit, science insists that its answer is the only plausible one.
Therefore my main complaint is the way science dictates what must have happened when to do so breaks its own rules of using the Scientific method
After that we get all the personal stuff about scientists and honesty and jobsworth and all the other baggage that really should not be part of the discussion. it is not personal. It just is. I am a Christian and athough I acknowledge that evolution as a process exist, I do not accept ToE as the whole story.
Do I make myself clear? I have nothing against science, or scientists only dogmatism and anti-theism.
If all that offends you, sorry, but It shouldn’t.(IMO)
We can add the scientific methodology to the list of scientific concepts you don’t understand. Nowhere in the scientific method do you prove anything. All conclusions in science are tentative. This includes meteorology, so I would have to assume you also reject meteorology since it can’t be proven visually.
In this thread you have demonstrated you don’t understand what speciation, natural selection, or the scientific method are. These should have all been concepts you were taught in the 1970’s, and yet you don’t understand them.
We don’t visually observe what features different species have? We don’t observe DNA sequences? We don’t observe shared similarities in embryonic development between species?
We can add empiricism ot the list of things you don’t understand. How is a comparison of DNA sequences not empirical?
Nowhere does science make that claim. You can either accept scientific theories that are supported by mountains of empirical evidence, or ignore them. Your choice.
Judging by what you write here, you don’t even know what science is.
I measure 11 differences in all with 9 substitutions and a 2 base indel.
How is any of this an assumption?
You twist science beyond any recognition. I am only showing you what science actually is. It is up to you whether you learn what science actually is or continue to misrepresent it.
For alll you know you could be proving thqt each one has 2 legs, 2 arms and a head. etc etc.
The assumption is that the comparisons mean what you claim.
I show you its limitations maybe? (And its arrogance)
No, you show me what a scientist thinks science is. You show me what a scientist concludes. You refuse to accept that there may be an alternative valid viewpoint.
And you weight any criticism against yourself not the criticism.
Do you know how condescending that is? How superior? How insulting?
The scientific method does not and never has required an entire process to be directly observed by a single individual in order for conclusions to be drawn about it. No proof,visual or otherwise, is or ever has been required.
Perfectly clear. You don’t know what science is, so your comments about it are worthless.
That’s not the problem here. You are accusing scientists of not using scientific method.
"And that is the whole point.
You cannot visually prove your assertion. It is impossible. Therefore…
It is not using the Scientific Methodology."–RichardG
If you want to reject the conclusions made through the scientific method, then fine. However, if you are going to accuse the scientific community of not using the scientific method then you are going to get some blowback. That is a very serious accusation because it challenges the professional and personal integrity of nearly all biologists.
The scientific methodology is background research, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, make conclusions, and publish. When we follow those steps you accuse us of not using the scientific method. The entire point of the scientific method is to understand what we can not directly observe, and to do so through hypothesis testing and empiricism.
Perhaps an analogy might help here. You and I don’t come to the same conclusion about the existence of the Christian God. I’m fine with that, and I suspect you don’t feel the need to argue with me about it. That has never been something you and I have argued over.
However, what would you say if I described Christianity as the belief in Zeus spawning multiple demigods with mortal beings? I think you would say something about that, wouldn’t you? If you did try to correct me, would you be satisfied if I said, “You just reject what I say because you won’t allow for a different view”? Misrepresenting people and concepts isn’t a matter of differing views. It’s a matter of misrepresenting people.
Added in yet another edit:
A rather lengthy quote from Todd Wood. While Todd Wood rejects evolution, I completely respect his position. I have no argument whatsoever with Todd Wood’s description of science, the theory of evolution, or his approach to understanding the universe. If Todd did propose a scientific model for baraminology I would address it as any other scientist would, and I fully expect Todd to embrace any scientific criticisms.
I am accusing them of bending it to form that hypothesis
Back to taking things personally see.
The fact is that there is no way to observe ToE. You can observe evolutionary progress, but you cannot observe all the changes needed to complete ToE. It is, at best, an extrapolation of what can be truly observed.
Nie flow diagram. Works fine. But (see above)
IOW you are bending the rules to accomodate what is practicall and possible.
You have a hypothesis and because you see not viable alternative it beomes a “Scientific” fact. But it is brodcast as an actual fact!
I think you would have difficulty convincing anyone of this. In terms of analogy, how does it help? If you are accusing me of just inventing something then I take offence.
The trouble is that I cannot justify Todd Wood for his “opinion”. It is based on a view of Scrpture that is (or should be) untennable.
So because I address the science, instead of Scripture I am wrong? Is science so vulnerable?
I do not deny the “Gobs and gobs” of evidence for what you claim. i deny your conclusions that go beyond the scientific method and transcend into Extrapolation and wishful thinking.
I have never denied the existence of evolution. I argue with YEC or biblical creationist about denying evolution. evolution exists! ToE does not, .and cannot be “proven beyond doubt” using any method scientific or otherwise.
It always boils down to this. I have spent too long defending evolution as a process to biblical Christians and then defending Theistic creation to scientists. And I get insulted and haranged from both camps!
Evolution is not in crisis. ToE is not in crisis, it is just an unprovable scientific view of how human were created. that is taught as fact
And there are two prongs to my “attack”
One is philosophical, in terms of the “ethic” of ToE (and survival of the fittest)
and the other is
The scope of the evolutionary process to achieve what ToE claims (Single cell to human)
The first is dismissed as not science
And
The second is dismissed as inaccurate science, despite (or because of) the fact that no one will define the scope of the evolutionary process, or admit the possibility / probability of an impossible change. (Irreducibility)
And so we then go round the houses about Scientific method, ethics, honesty, concepts, impossible, and so on.
And then there is the relevance of DNA mapping and comparison…
until or unless you can decipher the DNA map so as to isolate how an eye, or a femur, or a skin is formed, you are just comparing sequences. You are viewing a map with no key. You are comparing numbers with no meaning. You are claiming an understanding and a link that you cannot possibly prove. Like I said you could be comparing the existence of a leg, or an arm, or an eye, or a backbone. You do not know how the code is converted into such structures. You do not know whether the developing embryo is reflecting evolution or, as I would suspect, just the only way possible for it to develop. You cannot isolate which DNA codes are for the embryonic parts and which are for the adult. You cannot prove that what you see are building blocks or design codes. You have a human generated algorythm that is self fulfilling and proves nothing
And you claim both certainty and truth nevertheless
And the only way to shut someone like me up is to belittle and ridicule.(You dare not confront outside your safe scientific environment)
It’s been defined for you here multiple times by biologists. I’m not going to muddle the waters with my lesser understanding.
That just shows you don’t know what the scientific method is. It does not require constant observation! You’ve been listening to fallacious reasoners who make a false distinction that puts anything in the past outside the realm of science.
Sure he can, because when you get things wrong about science and claim your view is valid, and pretend you’re talking scientifically, it makes you look silly at best.
Unless I’ve missed something, no one has ever observed a snowflake form in nature, only in lab simulations, which by Richard’s definition makes snow formation unscientific. The same holds true for sleet and hail – we have models, but no one has ever sent instruments tracking through storm clouds to watch a particular particle of ice grow to be a bit of sleet or hail.
And no one has ever observed a piece of oceanic plate subduct and followed it all the way down to the mantle to melt and become magma and then rise to the surface and erupt as lava, so by Richard’s definition volcanology does not use the scientific method.
On top of that, no one witnessed the formation of the Mississippi River delta by New Orleans, so by Richard’s definition the claim that the land where New Orleans sits was formed by riverine sediment deposition is not scientific.
For that matter, no biologist has ever watched cell by cell as tree rings form seasonally, so counting the ages of trees by the rings must not be scientific, either.
If he’s going to insist that only where we can actually observe every step along the way can it be called science, there is very little that counts – not even chemistry, since no one has watched the individual molecules interact via electron sharing, etc.; it is statistically inferred.
I think Richard’s point here is clear, he just doesn’t have very precise word choices.
What he claimed was that there are 9 substitutions and a 2 base indel in the sequence.
The issue seems to be that you are reading into it more than is said.
Just as I would show that what a mason thinks masonry is, or a carpenter thinks carpentry is, is what it really is. If you want to know what mechanics is, you don’t ask a poet, you ask a mechanic; if you want to know what baking is, you don’t ask a fashion designer, you ask a baker; etc. It is the practitioners of a profession who know what that profession is.
And “observation” doesn’t mean “sees every single step of a process”.
If you want to derive ethics from ToE, the result is the position that all genetic variation should be preserved and encouraged because all variation is potentially valuable. As an example, many people think it would be good for humans to live on Mars, yet what evidence we have suggests that human health may not do well with the lesser gravity there. For all we know, there are some people living on Earth right now whose genes would allow them (and their offspring) live quite well in Mars gravity – we just don’t know who they are. And since we don’t know who they are, if we want humans to eventually live on Mars we should protect every single individual as much as any other in order that this hoped-for gene gets preserved until it is made useful by people actually living on Mars.
So an ethic derived from ToE would oppose poverty, advocate for universal healthcare, stand firmly for individual rights, seek peace rather than war, and anything else that would best preserve the genetic heritage of every individual.
You demand that everyone here by omnicompetent in anything you want to disagree with let you fail to endeavor to be even moderately competent in areas where you want to make grand pronouncements.
My grandmother taught me that this is a common characteristic of “snake-oil salesmen”: the assertion of being right and the refusal to admit that anyone else is sufficiently competent to bring a valid dispute.
I don’t have to be able to explain every detail to you to be able to point out where your views fail, I only have to recognize that people who plainly know what they are talking about have shown your views fail.
No. A simple google search should find plenty of definitions for you. Here is one:
Correct, you are accusing scientists of not properly using the scientific method. That’s a pretty serious accusation.
Correct. In science, you don’t observe theories. Observations and theories are two separate things. This is true for all theories in science. We don’t observe the theories that describe how weather occurs. We don’t observe the theory of relativity. We don’t observe Germ theory.
What rules are being bent?
Nowhere have I done that. I dare you to find a single time I have done so.
I have a theory. I have facts (i.e. observations). Facts and theories are two different things. Theories explain facts. Theories never become facts.
You are just wrong. I am sure I am wrong about some things in this world. You just happen to be wrong about how the scientific method works and the relationship between observations and theories.
You don’t address the science. Instead, you accuse scientists of not doing science, all the while not understanding how science works.
All scientific views are unprovable. All scientific views include facts. Evolution is no different.
From what I have seen, your claim that survival of the fittest doesn’t happen is dismissed because we can observe it happening in nature.
That’s all I need to do in order to test hypotheses about evolution. All DNA is inherited in the same way no matter what function it has or doesn’t have. All DNA mutates in the same way, regardless of function. Those are the only requirements I need in order to draw conclusions about common ancestry and molecular evolution.
Embryos don’t use evolution to develop.
I don’t need to know if DNA is what you would call building blocks or design codes in order to count the differences between the genomes. I only need the differences in order to test our hypotheses on common ancestry and molecular evolution.
Embryos have gills, Chimps are almost identical in structure to humans. Of course those details are irrelevant. Of course. How could scientists possibly have got it wrong!
