Evolution

Y'know guys,
I remember the primordial ooze.

It was icky.

OK seriously, there's something multiplicative about how life explodes on this planet, given the bacteria that blew in maybe on space dust and found purchase in tide pools.

Natural Selection depends on this flourishing of life forms over a very long time scale.

The time scale was Darwin's last hurdle. His thought was formulated (and he was not the first to notice) but could not figure out how there was enough time for everything to occur given the mindset of his age.

Once it became accepted (by Naturalists observing shells in the limestone of the cliffs of Dover) that what the church said about the lifespan thus far of planet earth being 6,000 years old was demonstrably wrong ("T'ain't so!" said they), the final piece fell into place and he could publish (pressure from Wallace notwithstanding) without fear that he had missed something that would result in a fatale flaw once the examination began of his thesis.

A brief search for evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution led me to discover this web page from a website called "Evolution 101" provided by UC-Berkeley.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1aRandom.shtml

The article mentions that there is no unambiguous evidence of NON-random mutation (no surprise there). Further, the final paragraph points to research indicating that mutations that are beneficial in a particular environment can be present in the organism even before the organism is exposed to the particular environment. This seems like very strong evidence that the mutations are not a purposeful response to the environment.

It immediately reminded me of how there has turned out to be a certain segment of people who are immune to the AIDS virus. It seems extremely unlikely that this particular immunity in these individuals results from purposeful genetic mutation in the mere decades since the arrival of AIDS. The gene is undoubtedly present in many individuals who have never been exposed to the AIDS virus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNFORTUNATELY, my curiosity in this AIDS-resistance led me to this article, which points out that beneficient mutations pre-existing in AIDS-immune individuals are probably the result of a resistance to some previously-existing form of smallpox.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198

This analysis would seem to cast doubt on the (impressive to me, just moments earlier) evidence provided at the UC-Berkeley website. (Perhaps the antibiotic resistance pre-existing in the bacteria discussed there was the result of a previous exposure to a similar anti-biotic...). I kept looking into this issue, until encountering scholarly articles that are way out of my league.

This leaves me wondering what the evidence for random mutation's key role in evolution actually is. Both websites mentioned above seem to go to certain lengths to point out that research in this area is continuing, and that a certain amount of debate continues, at least regarding certain points. So far, I haven't been able to find any conclusive evidence for the randomness of beneficial genetic mutation--only evidence of beneficial pre-existing mutations, which might have resulted from previous exposures to similar environmental challenges in the past.

At this point, it seems to me that the best 'evidence' for random mutation's key role in evolution would be an "Occam's Razor"-type argument: Random mutation can theoretically do the job, so why would we need to posit a mechanism for purposeful mutation? But there might be much better, more direct evidence out there somewhere. I'm just kind of worried that it exists only in scholarly articles.

Can someone help me find a simple, clear example of evidence for the randomness of beneficial mutations? (Something better than a mere assertion in a biology textbook). The last thing I expected was that it would be so difficult to find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

OK seriously, there's something multiplicative about how life explodes on this planet, given the bacteria that blew in maybe on space dust and found purchase in tide pools.

---

I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

Can't count it out, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Can someone help me find a simple, clear example of evidence for the randomness of beneficial mutations? (Something better than a mere assertion in a biology textbook). The last thing I expected was that it would be so difficult to find it.

---

It's probably going to be more difficult than that because it's a chicken/egg question which doesn't leave room for a simple answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's probably going to be more difficult than that because it's a chicken/egg question which doesn't leave room for a simple answer.

---

Regarding the chicken and the egg , it's fairly simple. Wouldn't you say the egg came first, and a chicken crawled out of it? There are countless of species that lay eggs, and at one point some creature laid an egg and a chicken came out of it, rather than whatever the ancestor was. Proto-Chicken!

If you'll excuse me, I have an excellent idea for a tv-series featuring a normal proto-chicken couple whose life is turned upside down when their hatchling turns out to be a CHICKEN!

Pursuant to space dust:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

Can't count it out, though...

---

Fair enough. Not sure of the origin of the single celled life form myself.

But certainly once begun it had some tenacious qualities. Of course, we wouldn't know of the failures to thrive - anywhere.

I live on the Pacific Coast, not far from where Steinbeck wrote Canery Row, and was entralled by "Doc's" work - in real life (Naturalism I think applies here).
I have observed on the seemingly barren rock of the coast that life will sprout and grow -if not exactly thrive- anywhere it can find the most basic ingrediants (sun, air, soil, for most of the sparse looking vegetation).

It's magnificent at what it does: live!

I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

There are countless of species that lay eggs, and at one point some creature laid an egg and a chicken came out of it, rather than whatever the ancestor was. Proto-Chicken!

---

Ah, but the mother had to donate the genes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

If you'll excuse me, I have an excellent idea for a tv-series featuring a normal proto-chicken couple whose life is turned upside down when their hatchling turns out to be a CHICKEN!

---

I could see Southpark going for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

---

I always wonder whether animals animorphosise humans to each other. Sitting in their tree watching the tourists, "Wouldn't you like to have those fingernails picking your fleas?!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andave_ya

Oh quite. Well, all this thread has done for me is raise even more questions about evolution and therefore cement creationism. Sorry.

On my final note, I have to say I find evolution rather insulting. My faith has me as the child of the King, while evolution has me as the child of an ape. Or sludge.

Enjoy the rest of the discussion.

---

I think you are mixing The Bible with Sleeping Beauty or Snow White, because in the Bible we are not descended of any King, but dirty, clay and mud. And You have to agree, even a sludge may be an improvement from dirty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I never liked this idea myself - compared to spontaneous abiogenbesis, the chances of a single-celled life form staying alive in space doesn't appeal.

---

Yes, and furthermore it just pushes the question of how that life form evolved on another planet (or in space or anywhere else). So it's really a non-solution.

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backline

Pursuant to space dust:

Fair enough. Not sure of the origin of the single celled life form myself.

But certainly once begun it had some tenacious qualities. Of course, we wouldn't know of the failures to thrive - anywhere.

I live on the Pacific Coast, not far from where Steinbeck wrote Canery Row, and was entralled by "Doc's" work - in real life (Naturalism I think applies here).
I have observed on the seemingly barren rock of the coast that life will sprout and grow -if not exactly thrive- anywhere it can find the most basic ingrediants (sun, air, soil, for most of the sparse looking vegetation).

It's magnificent at what it does: live!

I'll admit I sometimes feel like saying thanks to my ancestors, one celled or multi. I guess that's what we humans do (anthropomorphise).

---

This is admittedly off topic, but since earlier posters treferred to primordial slime, I will quote this poem by Yvor Winters:

BY THE ROAD TO THE AIR BASE

The calloused grass lies hard
Against the cracking plain;
Life is a grayish stain;
The salt-marsh hems my yard.

Dry dykes rise hill on hill:
In sloughs of tidal slime
Shell-fish deposit lime,
Wild sea-fowl creep at will.

The highway, like a beach
Turns whiter, shadowy, dry:
Loud, pale against the sky,
The bombing planes hold speech.

Yet fruit grows on the trees:
Here scolars pause to speak;
Through gardens bare and Greek,
I hear my neighbor's bees.


Nick

In point of fact it is very hard to say that evolutionary theories are flawless. It is not necessary that all scientific ideas are correct. Many of them are simply hypothetical and baseless.
Recently I have read an article in Newsweek about the Big Bang. The theory of the Big Bang is baseless in someways, only imagined or assumed ideas, and there could be no strand of truth in that theory.

Scientists at times theorize ideas but those ideas not necessarily can be correct, and some scientists just to earn immense popularity keep on publishing one article after another.

We should not take all theories propounded by scientists to be true or for granted. And to this end I feel all that is said about the theory of evolution may not be flawless.

Scientists too give dogmatic views at times.

Regardless of whether the huge theories of Evolution are true, there are many proven examples of social evolution and cultural evolution everywhere. Its not as much a theory as it is just something that happens, and is measurable, on a small scale. However, the larger and grander "beginning of the world" theories are far from proven as of yet. Though the fact that there is at least a shred evidence compared to all non existent evidence of the contrary, it's easy to see why it's the most accepted theory.

I just finished reading Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in evolutionary theory. Dawkins can be irritating. He has a lot of biases, which anyone who is sensitive to language will be able to discern, despite his trying to project a tone of pure commonsense scientific objectivity, but I was really impressed with Chapter 6, Origins and miracles. This chapter presents the real intellectual challenge for those who wish to explain a "natural" (as opposed to "divine") origin of "life." This is something that Darwin himself never really addressed. The main problem is how a "replicating" mechanism could plausibly have evolved. The problem is that the current relpicative system (nucleic acid chains like RNA and DNA are apparently too complex to have arisen, in "one step" or de novo or as "intermediate" stable physical entities, however improbable... Dawkins doesn't deal with other things, like the hard to explain origin of complex flagellar "motor," in this book.

Dawkins however takes you to the point that you can imagine a non-creationist explanation of the origin of life. He cites the Scottish Chemist, Graham Cairns-Smith's "mineral-crystal" theory of the origin of proto-life replication, and that theory is quite compelling.

In fact ideas we weave out of reading or hearing or inheriting are not necessarily realistic..
Darwin's many theories can be right but not necessarily all.

Of course the idea of Struggle for existence seems realistic but there are others he said or he assumed based on their scientific researches that man descended from animals could be right or wrong.

Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

Let us not take every idea for granted and this is unscientific

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

Let us not take every idea for granted and this is unscientific

---

No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

---

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?
Was the big bang true? Do you beleive in black holes? By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, that's a really bad conspiracy fallacy which has stuck around for many years, solely due to many people not understanding scientific facts.

It's not a valid question.

---

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?
Was the big bang true? Do you beleive in black holes? By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

In fact ideas we weave out of reading or hearing or inheriting are not necessarily realistic..
Darwin's many theories can be right but not necessarily all.

---

Darwin had one theory that I have heard evolution through natural selection. What other theories do you think he had?

Quote:

---

Today there were questions raised against the idea that whether really man has landed on the moon or not.

---

Foolish people have been throwing that idea around since 1969. Men did walk on the Moon. That is fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

If this is not a valid question, I have a series of valid questions. Can you answer?

---

Of course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Was the big bang true?

---

We don't know.

Given that it happened ~15 billion years ago, I'm not too bothered that we can't model it for certain. It was a singular event in the universe's history, and if it happens again, it sure won't be in my lifetime. The CERN collider may give more insight.

The way I look at it simply that the big bang is the best theory we have right now, but regardless of what caused the universe, we live in it and it exists, so it's there to study in its present form at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Do you beleive in black holes?

---

I don't think "believe" is the right word, because it's certain they exist. What we know them is also quite indistinct because we can only study the effect they have on their surroundings since light can't escape from them. I believe we are starting to understand them, but an amount of matter exceeding that of the entire solar system the size of a golf ball takes some adjusting to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

By the same token can we prove to all that Darwinism has no fallacy?

---

Not at all. Darwin shouldn't be seen as the messiah of evolution/natural selection, but should be seen as the discoverer of natural selection whose theories have been changed and refined as we study things Darwin couldn't - DNA being the obvious example. Darwin made lots of mistakes, which is one reason why I laugh at creationists who deny evolution - as a science, it is unrecognisable from Darwin's days and while it isn't yet perfect, it's extremely accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Atheist, we are in the vortex of confusion.

---

Nah; a picture of clarity.

:)

No Atheist, there is no picture of clarity.

We know little about the universe we are in. Science knows very little. We study phenomena and cannot say what caused them. Of course science uses logic, methods of experiments and observations.

I too subscribe to the idea of science while studying observable phenomena and yet all phenomena are not observable.

Everything is not crystal clear. I do not beleive in mythological gods. I do not beleive in anecdotal descriptions as we come across in religious texts.

I cannot subscribe to the idea that there is God and who created everything we have.

Yet I cannot conclude at all. For I do not know natural phenomena totally.

We do not know a little of the construction of this universe.

You seem to conclude everything. You assert your scientific ideas to make conclusions. We all are in a vortex.

We do not know how long we live and nothing is under our control

Atheism interests many, and this is an obsession and has almost been a religion the way communism has been one.

When we have a fixation we become blind to the rest of disciplines.

I am not obsessed with theism or atheism.

I am open to ideas, with no fixation. I am open to your ideas of atheism and to those with theism€.

Well, all I can say is, I seriously cannot believe the amount of people who continue to beat at rubber walls. Believers in Evolution are not gonna change, nor are believers in Creationism. And those of us in the middle of the road beat beat upon from both sides, one for going too far and one for not going far enough! :brickwall

Evolution is a scientific theory that seems to partially explain and predict more natural phenomena than competing theories, past and present. Likewise the Big Bang and Black Holes. In this sense the theories are valuable.

History has shown that few scientific theories survive intact over the centuries. Evolution too has changed much since Darwin. We are but babes in our understanding of the universe and its physics.

No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

History has shown that few scientific theories survive intact over the centuries.

---

I think that's incorrect.

Almost all mathematical theories and laws have remained unchanged, as have most physical laws. I find it hard to find more than fine-tuning.

Some of the more esoteric theories and biological notions have been subject to change, but the circumference of a circle has been pi*d forever. Hard science changes surprisingly little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Evolution too has changed much since Darwin. We are but babes in our understanding of the universe and its physics.

---

I'd argue that we actually understand the vast majority of the universe and its physics. Dark energy/matter might be quite exciting, but unless we discover a new dimension, there isn't much left of this one to find.

Again with evolution, I said earlier that it's changed, but it really is more of that fine-tuning than a wholesale "Darwin was wrong".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

No scientific theory can claim to be 'true' in the way that, maybe, God can.

---

That's an interesting concept.

In what way does say the Theory of Pythagoras have less truth than an unsubstantiated fairytale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Some of the more esoteric theories and biological notions have been subject to change, but the circumference of a circle has been pi*d forever. Hard science changes surprisingly little.

---

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd argue that we actually understand the vast majority of the universe and its physics.

---

Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

---

Ah, the old agnostic argument.

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations. It's a German thing, I think. Like his comments on Spinoza's god and the wonder of the universe, old Albie was trying to please everyone all the time.

All science is mathematics. Any pretence that we don't live in "reality" is just a plea for agnosticism. As I said last week, it's all very well in high-school debates, but in the wider universe, it's just silliness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

---

Nope, I'm still disagreeing with you.

Our understanding of all the things you mention is as near to complete as makes sense at this stage. We can watch your brain think about a boat floating on a lake, we know everything we want to about arachnids and insects and their DNA and habits, we can cure or identify almost every disease humans can get, and we understand implicitly how volcanoes, tsunamis and earthquakes happen.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

It's hard separating the facts from the fallacies, and global warming is a really good example. Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.

As Richard Dawkins said - if there is disagreement on a subject, that doesn't mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is possible for one side to be completely wrong.

I'd swap "possibly" for "usually".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

you.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

---

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.

Quote:

---

Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.

---

While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations.

---

Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far

---

If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.

---

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

I look at it that the areas of disgreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

---

I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

---

Evangelical fervour?

Interesting take on it.

There are two options with dealing with reality - either accept it or not. I choose to accept that what we see is what it is. The only arguments against reality are philosophical ones - there isn't even a working hypothesis of what reality is if it isn't what we see - so I find it very easy to dismiss as naive nonsense.

Keanu Reeves or Douglas Adams.... hmmm.

As to Einstein's alleged scepticism, I love it that he is held by theists, deists and agnostics alike as a paragon of "what might be". He was a master of the middle ground, which I'd say came from his inherent Jewishness in the early 20th century, but he clearly let his true feelings run loose in personal letters. In that vein, we see Einstein not so much as a lover of silliness, but someone who calls it for childish nonsense it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science.

Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

---

No, I think you're making another category error.

There are two reasons maths doesn't appear to work in the "real world". The old argument goes that two apples can never be identical to the last electron, so maths doesn't truly work.

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy - the maths is completely workable, but it would probably take more computing power than Google has to work it out to the last electron. Along with that, the enormous expense of a pointless exercise is totally unjustifiable and nobody's ever going to do it.

Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible. You'd probably need a computer the size of Jupiter to work it out though.

Engineering uses approximations because it's easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!

---

Yes. I'd always hoped that people would see that phrase as referring to love, fun, laughter, imagination, dreams and wonder, but alas, most people see it as an excuse to want fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

---

And you type that sitting at a computer thousands of kilometres away from me, using technology which would have astounded people from only a century ago. 100 years ago, the only means by which you could have communicated with me is by letter on a ship. (The paper, pen, envelope, seal and ship all brought to you by science as well)

Today, you tap a keyboard, uploading it to the largest machine ever built on earth, from where I access it at the speed of light. (Apart from the speed of light, all brought to you by science!)

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

---

Can't disagree with that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

---

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.

Quote:

---

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

---

Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.

Quote:

---

I look at it that the areas of disagreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.

---

Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observations. The Michelson-Morley Experiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.

Quote:

---

I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.

---

I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidence for the last couple of millennia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.

---

Going by posts of yours I've seen, I agree, which is why I'm wondering where the mistake is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.

---

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observarions. The Michelson-Morley Experiiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.

---

I'd never argue that scientists aren't able to be convinced by their own biases; I have ongoing battles with several due to that exact problem.

That isn't "science" however. Ideas and hypotheses become science when they have been published and peer-reviewed. In many cases, and Michelson & Morley are a classic example, what at first appears to be science is not. It is published, then found to be flawed. That makes it an error by scientists, rather than false science. It's the very strength of science that the rubbish is weeded out this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidece for the last couple of millennia.

---

Not really, no. We don't know what the La Nina/El Nino patterns were in individual years, we don't have accurate weather statistics and we don't know what the size of polar ice caps were. What we're doing with climate science is trying to make a wheel using pi as "about 3 and a sixth".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

---

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible.

---

We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.



We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

---

Of course there is no development of science to that extent, ans science is still at its premature stage in so far as the universe is concerned. What we know of science is a few theories.

Man cannot be hooked to sets of theories and want to break through new domains of knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.

---

Well, since we just disagree, let's agree to check it out in 20 years and see what progress we've made in that time.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

---

Goodness me; as a woman, I'd surprised you think size matters!

That the vast majority of matter resides in black holes and that the vast majority of "stuff" in the universe is actually dark energy/matter just doesn't..... matter! Inside black holes and dark energy/matter, whatever it is will almost certainly each conform to one simple set of physical rules. I'd take a good bet that no life, and especially no sentient life exists inside of any of the above, that nothing actually happens "in" them at all. Accordingly, while we might not know what happens to/in 99% of the mass and energy in the unverse, if they only have tidal effects on the rest of the universe - which seems to be the case - the gap that the lack of knowledge about them causes is fairly small from where I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.

---

I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

---

You hit the nail right on the head. I really don't think changes to the ToR will be earth-shattering. I am yet to be convinced that it matters beyond the almost-esoteric level anyway - I just wish they'd hurry up and get the hadron collider working. (again)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

---

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have. We've probably still only discovered 1% of species which ever existed, but even discovery of the other 99% in some amazing fossil pit wouldn't change the ToE in any great way at all. Like climate, it's only missing data and wouldn't - I don't think - cause any kind of wider re-appraisal of the whole theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have.

---

Even small changes in knowledge can have staggering consequences, and lead to unimaginable increases in knowledge. For instance, while little changed in nuclear physics between 1926 and 1946, following the A-bomb, our knowledge of space and submarine travel, warfare, power generation and medicine has expanded massively. Similarly with the discovery of the transistor. Will the future be different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

All science is mathematics.

---

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

Mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a kind of
mental game based on what is called "logical thinking" and
other basic concepts of "number," "counting," and "spatial
and time dimensions."

Mathematics certainly depends on the way the human mind
works. Whether or not the human mind works has anything to
do with the way the physical world works is arguable.

What I think is not arguable is that the only way we have to
understand the physical world is to use our minds to make sense
of it. Mathematics has been very effective so far in this
endeavor.

I forget who it was who said "The Universe may not be stranger
than we think; it may be stranger than we can think." I don't
believe it was Einstein, but another cosmologist.

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

---

Only if you can find something which doesn't conform to an algorithm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Only if you can find something which doesn't conform to an algorithm.

---

I thought my comments were clear and I was hoping for a clear response. Your response referring to conformation with an algorithm is not clear to me.

Mathematical reasoning has certainly demonstrated its usefulness to scientists, especially physicists, who try to understand how the world
"works." A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game (admittedly a very elegant one) like Chess or Go. The physical world (including everything from subatomic particles to galaxies and living and non-living things) is what it is. We humans, who can think about stuff, try to make sense of the physical world. We use all sorts of strategies to make sense of it. One of these strategies is to find "laws" that describe (and can predict) what we percieve and experience of the physical world.

Equations are nice when you can find them, like F=ma, but Darwin and Wallace's hypothesis about biological evolution by natural selection is an example of a profound "non-mathematical" insight into the way the world works. The fact is that mathematics gives not a whit about the physical world. There are plenty of "valid" mathematical formulations that may or may not be found by "scientists" to be useful in describing this or that aspect of
the world as we experience it.

Nick

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game...

---

Yes. Mathematics is used to model fragments of our universe, sometimes well, but never perfectly because the physical world is orders of magnitude more complex than our puny models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

I thought my comments were clear and I was hoping for a clear response. Your response referring to conformation with an algorithm is not clear to me.

Mathematical reasoning has certainly demonstrated its usefulness to scientists, especially physicists, who try to understand how the world
"works." A "problem" with seeing mathematics as "science" is that mathematics is really a mind game (admittedly a very elegant one) like Chess or Go. The physical world (including everything from subatomic particles to galaxies and living and non-living things) is what it is.

---

That's it! The last sentence.

And so far, aside from Nick's objection below, and maybe quantum mechanics, maths can be used to show exactly what the physical world does and is.

Given enough time and computing power, literally any physical problem can be reduced to maths. The reason it isn't is simple. Take a thunderstorm, for example; to work out precisely where every electron in that thunderstorm is, where it's moving to, and what its movement will generate is entirely possible.

The problem is simply that it would take all of the computers on the planet and a billion programmers to work out one storm on our current calculation ability.

Bit hard to make that pay just yet. Another century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

We humans, who can think about stuff, try to make sense of the physical world. We use all sorts of strategies to make sense of it. One of these strategies is to find "laws" that describe (and can predict) what we percieve and experience of the physical world.

Equations are nice when you can find them, like F=ma, but Darwin and Wallace's hypothesis about biological evolution by natural selection is an example of a profound "non-mathematical" insight into the way the world works. The fact is that mathematics gives not a whit about the physical world. There are plenty of "valid" mathematical formulations that may or may not be found by "scientists" to be useful in describing this or that aspect of
the world as we experience it.

Nick

---

I'm glad you mention evolution, because all of evolution can indeed be broken down into mathematical modelling.

Not very easily, and the maths used is so far above my pathetic ability that it's scary, but trust me, it can be done. It is being done as we speak and results are astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

---

Annoying but true.

Could be that quantum physics has some answers, but the other side of the coin is the question of how much or whether the decay matters on a physical level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Yes. Mathematics is used to model fragments of our universe, sometimes well, but never perfectly because the physical world is orders of magnitude more complex than our puny models.

---

"Ability to compute" is more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Mathematics is OK when we look at the decay of a group of uranium atoms, but doesn't help much when we look at just one.

---

Yeah. Your point might be obscure to folks who haven't taken college level Calculus I, Physics I, and Basic Statistics, but those of us who have get the point. The radioctive decay of a large mass of radioactive atoms with a certain "half life" seems to be described by a simple antiderivative (integral) dt/t function. But this dosen't allow us to predict whether or not any one atom will decay while we are looking at it. For all we know, we can sit and watch that atom forever, and it might or might not decay without violating the general rule we've established to describe the behavior of a large population of these atoms. Am I getting this right so far?

I say, so what? It's apples and oranges. Science is full of these apparent mathematical versus experiential connundrums, especially when the science employs probabalistic versus descrete/finite mathematics to escribe "reality."

Thermodynamics is a good example. I love classical thermodynamics because
it is a branch of physics whose laws deal with physical experience in a way that seems to blighthy accept probabalistic and finite mathematical aspects of "reality" without choking on the apparent contradictions. The laws of thermodynamics (e.g. the Second Law) predict that a glass of water at room temperature on your kitchen table will not spontaneously turn into ice. However, such a glass of water could do so, though it would be highly improbable.

We humans have come up with some pretty impressive explanations of how the world "works." For what my opinion is worth, I have been most impressed
by Classical Thermodynamics and the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Natural Selection.

Nick