You have to see this :)

The idea of 'evolution' is based on the premise that information in the genome 'increases' and becomes more complex over time. (if not, then we would have 'devolution')

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1

Dawkins simply has no answer.. and the one he does come up with sounds more like a 'hyper fundamentalist right wing religious nutter' grasping for some intellectual breath when confronted with an unpalatable attack on his faith.

Please don't turn this into a discussion about 'Evolution vs Creation'

But I'm interested in an exploration of the line of thinking that arises with the notion of "geneomes become more complex" as they evolve... If I'm reading Dawkins correctly, he is pretty much saying that the answer is 'no'...which fails to explain the complexity of modern life forms.

Perhaps it might be best to leave out the "Creation Alternative" side altogether.. most of us know where we stand on this, so it won't bring mass conversions or anything.

Is Dawkins clutching at straws?
Is the model he proposes an accepted one?
Is he lacking in understanding of the processes of which he speaks?
Do his statements make you 'more' or less confident in the idea of 'origins of life by spontaneous evolution and chance'?

Regardless of what Dawkins says, there are several ways that "information in the genome" can increase.

-gene duplication through inversions and tranlocations that often occur during meiosis
-transposon jumping
-Genome duplication (eg through polyploidy for plants)
-gene amplification, eg esterase mediated insecticide resistance in some insects.
-rethrovirus insertions

There are whole gene families that display duplication, then mutation and selection. This can happen without being detrimental to the organism, because then there are redundant copies of the genes.

If you think Dawkins is the last word on evolution, then the joke's on you. He's a teacher.

Just to add some context, this video is ten years old. Even if you discount the deceitful editing, Dawkins does hesitate for a long time — in fact, he suddenly realises he's being set up and is trying to work out what to do:

Richard Dawkins explains:

"In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew [from the then Answers in Genesis] into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it."

See here for the science: http://thinkerspodium.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/creationist-crankery-flashback-richard-dawkins-stumped/

Dear Bugsy and Vanilla

as I said... this is not a 'Creation vs Evolution' rant :)

I just found it, and watched it..and it kind of stood out.. and knowing that there are among us some fairly qualified people (like Bugsy it would appear) who have more than a simple knowledge of these matters, I figured it might be a valuable thing to enquire about.

Bugsy..if you could expand a tad on those main points you listed, and if possible, show some critical assessments of them from 'the bright(dark?) side' :) or at least some alternative views I'm sure we would all benefit.

Interesting point Vanilla raises about 'deceitful editing' :) ohhhh my..I've NEVER seen that done by err say ..the ABC.. Greenleft weekly and so it goes on.

I agree with this though, there is no room for deceitful editing or cagey tricks in the presentation of what is meant to pass for serious journalism. I don't hold 'sattire' or discussion starter material to the same standard.. I want the same artistic licence as anyone else.

You folks might like to venture a comment on this:

<<What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.>>

Given the apparent dimensions of the intellectual problem (origins) don't you feel in all honesty that to maintain it 'must' have been by chance is just a bit like blind faith?

That is a stupid question.

Here's one that might stump Dawkins, though he may just accept it and move on:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Hi Freediver...

I had a peek at that link and it provides an interesting quote:

"Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science."

I tend to agree.."Natural Selection" alone..is scientific (and observable). But it seems the rest, where it is extended to... involves quite a bit of faith and not a small amount of bias

The simple answer is that the information in genetic material is information about the environment. Specifically, information on how a biological creature may survive and reproduce in that environment.

In a static environment with few pressures, organisms still change but will tend to "drift"; this can be considered genetic "noise". When an environment changes, organisms adapt to suit, and on the evolutionary timescale this represents a slow absorbtion of information about an environment.

Like all the other "problems" you raise, BOAZ_David, this isn't one, and hasn't been for a *long* time.

PS. *Please* be careful about point-of-view issues, such as:

* One man's information is another man's noise.
* One creature's evolution is another creature's downfall - the dodo, after all, evolved to become flightless because it suited the conditions of its habitat for a very long time.

Freediver, it's difficult to answer directly because you haven't named anything particularly specific that we are supposed to discuss the falsifiability *of*.

However, biology (all of which is related to evolutionary biology) makes all kinds of predictions about the natural world, and these predictions can and are validated or falsified all the time!

I can make predictions about what will happen to a population of birds after an extended drought. I can make predictions about the location, nature, and age of fossils being searched for in a particular region. And so on.

Repeatability doesn't mean you have to physically "set" the experiment. There's no shortage of experiments already running.

And if you'd like to make a *specific* assertion about some claim on the edge of research, I'm sure it would be easy to think of a falsifiable test.

The only reason it sounds absurd to "falsify" evolution, is that it is so well-established in so many different areas of research that you'd need a staggering amount of contrary evidence, across a large number of fields, in order to falsify it. The same is true of any well-established piece of science.

"you haven't named anything particularly specific that we are supposed to discuss the falsifiability *of*

That was my intention with distuinguishing natural selection from evolution. I can elaborate on this distinction if you want.

"I can make predictions about what will happen to a population of birds after an extended drought. I can make predictions about the location, nature, and age of fossils being searched for in a particular region. And so on.

The first represents a type of natural experiment and does have some value from a scientific perspective, though it is obviously much harder to work with than more controlled experiments. Your second does not relate to any kind of experiment. I suspect you worded it badly, because it seems to be a statement about how people interpret the theory. That is, it's about what natural historians would be looking for, not what they actually find.

"And if you'd like to make a *specific* assertion about some claim on the edge of research, I'm sure it would be easy to think of a falsifiable test.

Well, that depends on whether the prediction relates to natural selection or evolution. I know plenty of biologists experimenting with the former.

"The only reason it sounds absurd to "falsify" evolution, is that it is so well-established in so many different areas of research that you'd need a staggering amount of contrary evidence, across a large number of fields, in order to falsify it. The same is true of any well-established piece of science.

Wrong. Any real scientific theory can (and will be) be discredited with a single experiment - repeated by others of course. Some of these are amazingly simple, like the classic case of the circular disk producing a bright spot in the center of it's shadow. The fact that you would have to go about collecting evidence, or looking at evidence already collected, hints at a different research method, more familiar to historians than scientists.

Dawkins just caries on with changed dogmas

“"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
“"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives

I'm not too sure what you are asking for here Boaz, because there are a few different concepts being floated around. So I guess I'll start with your first questions:
-Dawkins is not "clutching at straws" as it's obvious he's not answering the original question. It's not certain whether this is because of himself or the editing.
He's also trying to answer a question with a complex answer with a simple answer easy to understand by laypersons, like any scientific communicator. I've seen and heard (on JJJ) Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki dodge a few questions myself by talking about something related but not the actual answer.
-He doesn't "propose a model", so I'm not sure what is being asked here.
-He does understand the processes, but as far as I am aware he is not a molecular biologist and may be not deeply familiar with some molecular processes, which is hardly surprising in such a huge field.
-The question was not about "spontaneous evolution and chance". This is what is referred to as abiogenesis, not evolution, and is not required for evolution to be valid. It's a common misunderstanding often deliberately employed.

I'm not sure what you are asking for in your second post there Boazy. You want more information on how gene/genome duplication works? Some evidence for it? Bright/dark side?

Just to be very clear here: are we talking about evolution and mechanisms for increase in information in a genome, or abiogenesis? We'll end up talking at cross purposes if you can't define the question properly.

As for freedivers comment on the theory of evolution being "unscientific", I've had this argument before. It all hinges on his/her/its definition of science. I think that all it shows is that the definition used in the argument is inadequate (or at least too limited) to explain exactly what science is.

runners copypasta needs no further comment.

Dawkins train of thought is a little out of date, don't you think. The definition of devolution is extinction, and given the fact that if one's gene pool falls belows its reproductive rate, its good by.

In the past, I have found the man to be very interesting and if it wasn't for that fall down the stairs, we just might have the answers to a lot of thing's. ( yes I know he lived past that) but robbed of the mind to mouth and this is the flow we all take for granted.

Hi Runner.. your Popper quote is challenging for sure.. and persuasive to an open mind I believe.

I found out a few things.

TRASPOSONS. Since excessive transposon activity can destroy a genome, many organisms seem to have developed mechanisms to reduce transposition to a manageable level.

GENE DUPLICATION seems more favorable to an evolutionary process.
seems to me though, that things must have become very complex before such a thing could happen, and even this (in my view) seems to point to design more than chance.

In fact each of the processes mentioned by Prof Bugsy, could equally be explained by design.. but thats just my unlearned view.

There are two ways that this topic may be approached, and we have seen both here in this little thread.

On the one hand, we can accept that there is still much to learn about how we evolved to be who we are, and our relationship with this tiny insignificant world and its other inhabitants.

When we arrive at a point where our research is unable to find an immediate answer, we take copious notes about what we do know, test again the hypotheses that allowed us to reach this point, and carry on.

We might sit back and think more carefully about the question. Is it the right one - i.e. will the answer actually illuminate, or is it just a dead end?

We might make more efforts to understand how others have reached their positions, and see if that can provide any clues as to how to examine the evidence further.

We might pose further questions ourselves. What if a previous answer has been misleading, or contains some conclusions that sounded good at the time, but that no-one has revisited for a while?

In short, there is a section of the population that accepts that there will always be more questions than answers, and that part of the excitement of being alive is to continue to examine them, critically and constructively, in the hopes of uncovering just another tiny corner of the mystery.

And then there are those who as soon as they come across anything that their mind cannot immediately grasp, say "God did it".

>>In fact each of the processes mentioned by Prof Bugsy, could equally be explained by design.. but thats just my unlearned view.<<

But the thing is Asst. Prof Boazy, intelligent design can be made to explain ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It has been proposed that an 'intelligent designer' (IDers often claim to have no assumptions on who it is, but three guesses as to who they think it is) designed the universe itself, life and everything in between. That is what actually makes it perfectly useless as a theory. If all the answers are the same (ie "it was designed", or "god did it"), then all the questions become meaningless and useless.

Here's a question: if an intelligent creator designed everything, how did they do it? What were the processes (forces) used that called everything into being? Answer that and you get a lollipop.

"I think that all it shows is that the definition used in the argument is inadequate (or at least too limited) to explain exactly what science is."

It encompasses all of modern technology and almost all of what is usually regarded as science. Evolution is the 'odd one out'. The definition was taught in high school science. It is the only definition that distuinguishes science from other fields of study and excludes clearly unscientific studies such as mysticism. It is the only way to define science meaningfully.

Ok, freediver, assuming that only empiricism can give a science credibility, then what about non-empirical sciences like mathematics? Maths not science?

However, there are many facets and parts to evolutionary theory, pretty much all of them empirical and grounded in observation and experiment. Paleontology of course is difficult to categorise, but even they have experimental methods. The falsifiability part comes in where tests (like dating methods) return results that are inconsistent with expectations, hypotheses are then updated to include this evidence- that's science.

The proclamation that the theory of evolution fails the "falsifiability" test is in error. The theory consists of many sub-parts, all of which are falsifiable.

"Maths not science?

Correct. It's maths. Maths, science and history all have fundamentally different research methods that define them very well and in a way that agrees with most 'lay people's' impression of the field.

More info on maths vs science:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176702993

"However, there are many facets and parts to evolutionary theory, pretty much all of them empirical and grounded in observation and experiment.

Hence my distinction between evolution and natural selection?

"Paleontology of course is difficult to categorise, but even they have experimental methods.

They may appear to be experiments. Perhaps you could give an example so I can explain why they aren't.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

"The falsifiability part comes in where tests (like dating methods) return results that are inconsistent with expectations, hypotheses are then updated to include this evidence- that's science.

That isn't falsifiability.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

This pretty well covers what I think about the subject:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm

What you are saying is that historical sciences are not sciences either. But last time I checked, palaeontology and forensic science were still considered science. This is why I believe your definition of what is and isn't science to be too limited.

But beyond the semantics:
Regardless of whether you believe it is 'scientific': is it real? Do organisms evolve? Did organisms evolve through history?

They're the real questions, not which category you decide to put the theory in, and we use science to answer them.

Bugsy,

The History of Science society would oint to The Great Divergence as a time when Humankind learned how to learn. Science requires hypotheses and testing which Popper would add should be tested {confirmed or refted] and tentatively held until something better comes along.An Ancient Chinese alchemist discovering gunpowder is merely happnestance. Mendel or a horse breeder forecasting outcomes is much closer to science.

Evolution complements and organisms adaptiveness to its ecology. The organism overcomes obstacles and fails to reproduce adapive genes or it does not. What is superior or inferior is relative. Einstein once said he did know if there would be WW III but he was certain ther would be no WW IV. Yet Mutual Assured Distrution [to humans]would be little concern cockroachs.

I was little suprised by Popper's quote. His main thread of thought took the path of confirmation and refutation of theory. Here much of Marxism, Psychoanltic theory and Religion seem to seek self confirmation, rather than refutation or null hypotheses. I think in the 21st centuty, fifty years after Popper reached his peak, genentics has reached the status of a science. Moreover, new biotechnolgies are sure to evolve [pun altert] for this reason.

Bugsy:

That damn post limiter is giving me the sh1ts again. This will probably be my last post today. Part 1 of two:

Exactly, history and science employ different tools and methods, with the field of study (as it is generally unsderstood) largely dicatating the tools employable. Obviously you *could* define science in a way that includes history and maths, but to do so would destroy any meaning for the word. Some argue this should be done because it stems from the latin word for knowledge, but if you want to refer to all branches of knowledge you should use the more appropriate term and not pretend that definitions have not change in two millenia.

To a large extent, forensic science is merely applying knowledge that science has provided. The only difference between forensic science and good old fashioned detective work is the age of the knowledge employed. That is a rather arbitrary distinction to make. It comes down to lay people's 'gut feeling' for what science is (in the absence of any deeper understanding of the term) misleading them in certain contexts. That being said, people who work in the field no doubt ask some genuine scientific questions, develop some genuine scientific hypotheses and run some genuine experiments.

Remember, science is a methodology, not a field of study. This is not just about semantics. Awareness of the scientific method is of great practical value to people. It is even a useful tool for debugging computer code or maintaining vehicles. To judge the definition based on whether it includes or excludes entire fields of study indicates a complete misunderstanding of the definition. The extent to which a field of study is scientific depends on the extent to which practitioners employ the scientific method. It is the methods and the 'theories' which are distinct, not the fields of study.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Part 2 of 2:

You are making a reasonable attempt to criticise the definition of science which I have put forward. However, without providing an alternative definition your efforts will inevitably be in vain. I suspect this discussion would be far more enlightening if you tried to provide an alternative definition, as it is the flaws in alternative definitions that will make you appreciate the simplicity, elegance and practical value of the definition I gave. You will soon find that it is far easier to accept that natural history is natural history rather than science than to try to reconcile a definition of science inclusive of natural history with what you otherwise regard as scientific and unscientific.

Freediver,
Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Science also refers to the organised body of knowledge people have gained using that system.
I have no problems with the scientific method which generally has the following steps:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

The main point of contention you have with evolution though, seems to be what constitutes an 'experiment'. I think you should check out wikipedia, as it has an explanation of many different types of experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

I know you have quoted wikipedia on what constitutes an experiment on your little blog, but you failed to include the rest of the article didn't you? Why?

'Historical' and other sciences (including sciences like medical science and ecology) often employ 'natural experiments' or 'quasi experiments' to observe phenomena that are predicted by the hypothesis- the hypothesis is either invalidated and updated or supported. This happens in evolutionary studies all the time.
Also I think you may be confused as to what constitutes a "conclusion". It isn't just a yes/no answer as to whether a hypothesis is wrong or not. A conclusion must necessarily update the hypothesis and propose a new one depending on the data.

Your assertion that "evolution" isn't falsifiable is absurd, nearly all (I say nearly as I am not aware of 100% of all the theories and cannot be absolute) parts of the theory (and there are many!) are testable (within logistical constraints) and falsifiable.

Also, I think you are getting your definitions in a twist: Natural History is definitely science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history

To argue otherwise is.......ah I won't say it.

I think we have to accept that the process of evolution is real ,but we do not know how environmental influences affects or even initiates genetic change.There may be an interaction we don't know about.I think that it is more than just random selection via genetic accidents.Modern man has evolved in just 2 million yrs.Accidents don't happen that quickly.

This is the area the religious folk should be exploring rather than illogical rants about creationism.

Arjay.. quite correct in my view.. yes, we should indeed be exploring the intricacies of the natural world.. many are. I don't see belief in God as Creator as a barrier to exploring the minutest particle making up matter.

Interestingly there is a bloke called 'Hicks' who came up with the idea of a "Hicks Photon"... when he first postulated it, he was ridiculed as some kind of nutter :) (by his peers in the science field) Now..they have constructed a 27km long tube/accelerator thingy to confirm or refute it. The point of mentioning him of course is simply to show that in the sciences there is a lot of 'orthodoxy' and any upstart can be called a heretic pretty jolly fast.

BUGSY.. when assessing raw data, I can understand that one might prefer not to bring 'Creationist' biases to the process. But of course if the scientist was a believer in God, he would not see it as 'bias', rather, he would view the atheist as being biased.
The person of faith, is often a person of experience, having seen or experienced the power of God in his/her life, it is for such reasons that we view 'it could not be God' as 'bias' :)

Pericles.. you might do well to note that also.

Interesting, Boaz, but I'm not entirely sure what point you are attempting to make.

>>Interestingly there is a bloke called 'Hicks' who came up with the idea of a "Hicks Photon"... when he first postulated it, he was ridiculed as some kind of nutter :) (by his peers in the science field)<<

Let's start with the fact that it's Higgs, not Hicks, and Boson, not Photon.

That's Higgs Boson, not Hicks Photon, Boaz.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

Apart from that, you had none of the facts correct. As usual.

Higgs - who is a Pom, by the way - was never "ridiculed as some kind of nutter". The closest he got to "ridicule" was the rejection of one of his early papers. Apart from that, which happens to every scientist from time to time, he was a perfectly normal particle physicist.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19750

That perfectly normal particle physicist bit may be a contradiction in terms, of course, but still doesn't put him in the ridiculed by his peers category.

Incidentally, the Higgs Boson is familiarly termed the "God Particle", because it is the final piece in the Standard Model, the widget that gives the universe its mass.

Higgs doesn't like the name, as he is atheist.

And of course, he may still be wrong, which would be a bit of a chuckle. But that's science for you. Always willing to test the theory, and damn the torpedoes.

But hey, I may have been unfair, Boaz.

Tell us more about this Hicks guy, and his Photon.

The notional date for the use of scientific method is 1760 [The Great Divergennce]. Here, developments since the Renaissance (C 14-16)and the rediscovery of esoteric Ancient Greek philsophy (from Spain) combined to provide a foundation for scientific method.

The Chinese applied ad hoc experiment and the Muslims [who had ocupried Spain] retained much of the knowledge of the Ancient [Attic] Greeks.

In the eighteen century, the West combined these sources and progressed much morer rapidly than did other civilizations.

The Dark Ages had passed and the Church was loosing its its monopoly on the interpretation of knowledge. Secularisation of knowledge led to the estiblishment of non-religious Academies in England and the Continent.

"'Historical' and other sciences (including sciences like medical science and ecology) often employ 'natural experiments' or 'quasi experiments' to observe phenomena that are predicted by the hypothesis- the hypothesis is either invalidated and updated or supported. This happens in evolutionary studies all the time."

It happens in studies of natural selection. It does not happen in studies of evolution.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/dinosaur-experiment.html

"A conclusion must necessarily update the hypothesis and propose a new one depending on the data."

There is absolutely no need for a conclusion to propose a new hypothesis if it falsifies the old one.

"Your assertion that "evolution" isn't falsifiable is absurd, nearly all (I say nearly as I am not aware of 100% of all the theories and cannot be absolute) parts of the theory (and there are many!) are testable (within logistical constraints) and falsifiable."

Again, that was the reason for my distinction between evolution and natural selection. How many times do I have to repeat this? I have offered to elaborate on this if you don't understand the distinction. You cannot lump a bunch of theories together and pretend all are scientific because most of them are.

"Also, I think you are getting your definitions in a twist: Natural History is definitely science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history"

There is only so much you can get from wikipedia. It does contradict itself if you try to sort out this issue over a lot of articles.

freediver, I think at this point you have to define what you mean by "evolution" or "the theory of evolution" and why it is (or which parts are) unscientific, because I am having trouble finding your definition of it on your site. This is only because we may not be talking about the same thing here (it is a BIG subject).

You quote from Wikipedia on your site, I has the impression that you thought it was a useful reference. My mistake.

Natural selection refers to those parts of the theory that can be experimented on. Evolution refers to those aspects that go beyond natural selection, including beneficial mutation, universal common ancestry, natural history (humans evolving from 'apes') etc. I mention it briefyl in the first article.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

I will expand on it and maybe add another article when I get time.

Now I am confused, because beneficial mutation and universal common ancestry and common ancestry of humans with apes are certainly the subjects of experiments. I think you need to go back and have a look at some of the literature.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0308725100v1.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22v36xlm59w6826/
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/2/597
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/2/879

Bugsy,

According to the display labeling at the Australia Museum in Sydney we "are" apes. Popularly, I think genetically we are said to be closer to chimps, but duplicated/redundant genes and non-combinant DNA needs to be discounted. Snort, snort rather than eek, eek?

That damn post limiter pisses me off. Please consider taking this up in the OzPolitic forum or somewhere else where you don't need to wait a few days to hash out a topic just because it requries a bit of back and forth.

Universal common ancestry is not falsifiable because it is a question of history, not science. Lab experiments can only demonstrate that it may be possible, but can never resolve the question of how it actually happened. No matter how many times scientists fail to recreate the entire process - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable.

Beneficial mutation is not falsifiable because it does not make any testable prediction. Not only does it not say what will actually happen, it does not say when. No matter how many times scientists fail to produce a beneficial mutation - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable.

Being able to prove a theory correct, or even proving it correct, still does not make it a scientific theory. Science progresses because it rejects theories that can only be proven correct and are not falsifiable.

There have been a few claims that beneficial mutations have been detected. Even this does not make the theory falsifiable or scientific. Furthermore, in the cases where beneficial mutation has been falsely claimed, it is not possible to prove that the information was not pre-existing. Rather, circular reasoning was used to come to the conclusion that beneifical mutation had occurred:

1) Something was observed for the first time
2) the beneficial mutation part of the theory of evolution states that it must have arisen at some time in the past via beneficial mutation
3) therefor it was beneificial mutation
4) therefor beneficial mutation does happen
5) and thus you come full circle

If this does not cover every example you have given, please explain in your own words rather than providing only links without any explanation as to why you think

"Universal common ancestry is not falsifiable because it is a question of history, not science. Lab experiments can only demonstrate that it may be possible, but can never resolve the question of how it actually happened. No matter how many times scientists fail to recreate the entire process - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable." - freediver

Its a question of ecology and chemistry. The bridge between inorganic to organic outcomes is not well understood. Crystals (inorganic) do show some properties of organic life. The missing-link here possibly anaeobic life.

Lab results demostrate possible latent variables which can be held as propositions. Even if science does produce the same outcome because a result merely alludes to the common cause: i.e., 2+2=4 or 1+3=4. Coming up with 4 does necessarily show the design.

However, triangulation of disciplines can strengthen a tentative hypothesis. Null hypotheses should be falsifiable and can indicate what did not happen.

O.

Oliver, with the greatest of respect, the only way you will convince freediver of anything is to support your point with a reference to an item that he himself has written, preferably published on ozpolitic.

He has the firm view, it appears to me, that if you string enough words together in a long enough row, you don't actually need to make sense in order to prove a point.

This particular exchange of yours foundered a while back on the jagged rocks of semantics. As a result, I suspect the holes thus created will ensure that neither argument will be allowed to float by the other.

But please don't stop, It's great fun to watch.

Thank you oliver, for reminding me of the null hypothesis. I do enjoy reading some of your posts.

freediver, I think you are putting up a http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

Your argument is suffering some seriously tortured logic here.

The chain of events is much more like this:

1) according to the theory of evolution, beneficial mutations must occur for natural selection to have any effect
-this was postulated even before the nature of genes and genetic material was known (i.e. DNA). Thus, amazingly, it was a PREDICTION
2) If beneficial mutations occur, then we should be able to a) find them if we look for them
and b) be able to recreate them in the laboratory
OR
If the null hypothesis is true, i.e. beneficial mutations do NOT exist, then we should not be able to find them, nor would they occur observed populations over time.

3) We do a targeted search for beneficial mutations in the field, we also try to recreate processes that may have mutated the genes to demonstrate a 'proof of principle' (i.e. it is possible).

4) we observe what appear to be beneficial mutations in the field (i.e. populations of organisms), also we are able to recreate these mutations in the laboratory.
5) therefore the null hypothesis is incorrect and the original hypothesis gains greater credibility.

This has happened many times over with different species and genes.
Here's one example, where insecticide resistance mutations randomly generated in the laboratory matched exactly those found in the field:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T79-433PBHV-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd659e5786b1260d4d5b8507c4601fa0

(cont'd)

"we observe what appear to be beneficial mutations in the field"

You cannot observe beneficial mutations in the field. They only 'appear to be' beneficial mutations because you are interpretting what you actually observe with the assumption that your theopry is correct. If you have to first assume your theory is correct in order to interpret observations as being supportive of your theory, then you are using circular logic. The same circular logic could be used to support the opposite hyopothesis, by assuming that beneficial mutations to not occur, in which case your actual observations would equally support the opposite theory because you would interpret your observations as not being beneficial mutations. It is not the observations at all that support the theory, but assumptions about them.

It is by avoiding such theories that science has progressed and why the theory of evolution escapes scientific scrutiny and falls into the same evidentiary quagmires of all historical theories. There will never be a concise empirical resolution to the issue like there is with genuine scientific theories, only perpetual arguments over the interpretation of vast volumes of evidence.

"also we are able to recreate these mutations in the laboratory"

Then it is not a mutation at all but pre-existing information. Mutations are by definition rare and spontaneous, not something you can recreate at will. If you can recreate it, it just means there is some as yet undiscovered mechanism within the DNA that produces the necessary change as needed.

How have I misrepresented your argument?

I hadn't finished yet. oh well.

Other patterns that evolutionary theory predicts, such as biogeographical distribution of organisms as well as patterns of their genetic variation has been supported by many scientific fields including taxonomic biology and geology and genetics. They are corroborative.
If you think a 'prediction' is just what will happen in the future, and/or when, then you probably don't have much of a career in science (take up astrology).

One example of a 'prediction' is that given the observations X, the theory predicts that pattern Y should be observed. If Y does not occur then the theory becomes weaker, if Y does occur the theory becomes stronger.
Now given the outcome of observations of Y, the theory must be updated to account for the new data.
You seem to think that this is 'unscientific'. Good luck with that.

Your assertion that "Mutations are by definition rare and spontaneous, not something you can recreate at will. If you can recreate it, it just means there is some as yet undiscovered mechanism within the DNA that produces the necessary change as needed", is completely false.
What is done (like for the insecticide resistance example) is to challenge them with a mutagenic compound or treatment. Random mutations are generated all over the genome and then can be selected for by a known mechanism (resistance to insecticide in this case).
"undiscovered mechanism" LOL, there are plenty of known mechanisms that produce mutations, including environmental stresses, chemical stresses, viruses, transposons and more both intrinsic and extrinsic to the genome.

These comments appear to me that not only are you misrepresenting evolution, you don't actually understand much of it and your dinosaur experiment page is an excellent example of a strawman. Given any alternative explanations to evolution, it's the most scientific one that explains the origin of species.

Lastly, I also have no intention of contributing to your blog, what needs to be said can be said here. And that's my post limit for the night.

Boaz.

Any news of Hicks, and that darned Photon of his?

Pericles - Oh, beautifully done!

CONFESSION TIME.... :)

Pericles.. you could have asked me 'where did you get the info about 'hiCKS'.... and I would have told you.

The accuracy of his name and particle are not dominant to the point I was making.
I simply HEARD an interview on ABC national, where he himself said words to the effect that initially his work was regarded as I described it. Clearly my hearing is as bad as I've long supected it to be.

I did a bit of a search on HiCK's and that's why I was not able to get much more on him. But you have generously filled in the gaps and also provided the obligatory 'whack a boaz' barb on the end.. I think you must have taken up residence in CJ's front yard and are sharing 'that little room and those little dolls and pins' with him 0_^

BUGSY.. you have to be applauded for your in depth and very educational posts there(seriously). I don't see any great threat in them to "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", if anything, they simply describe more of the wonder of His methods.

I suppose the first order of business really in attributing a level of 'faith' to the idea of spontaneous origins of life, are to find the right questions. There seems to be so much to consider.
If the processes of life were not as flexible and complex as Bugsy has described, I hardly see how it would have survived this long.
It seems 'survival' is built into us.

"Abstract: Beneficial mutations are the driving force of evolution by natural selection. Molecular biology has provided insights into the causes and types of mutations, as well as the biochemical and functional bases of specific beneficial mutations. Yet, relatively little is known about the distribution of the fitness effects of beneficial mutations in populations. Recent work of Gillespie and Orr suggested some of the first generalizations for the distributions of beneficial mutations and, surprisingly, they are partially biology independent. In particular, the theory suggests beneficial mutations obey an exponential distribution of fitness effects, with the same exponential parameter across different regions of genotype space, provided only that there are few possible beneficial mutations available to that genotype. Here we tested this hypothesis with a quasi-empirical model of RNA evolution in which fitness is based on the secondary structures of molecules and their thermodynamic stabilities. The theory was supported in local regions of genotype space when mildly beneficial mutations were ignored. However, the theory neither generalized to the full distribution of beneficial mutations in local regions of genotype space nor did the theory generalize across genotype space. Although in conflict with the current theory, these results suggest that more complex statistical generalizations about beneficial mutations may be possible."

- Matthew C. Cowperthwaite, J. J. Bull, and Lauren Ancel Meyers

The above would seem to represent the affects of beneficial mutation and does seem to argue for falsification across genotype space.

Moreover, forecasts [prefer to predictions] are made about why conflict exists. Suspect here it has to do with populations of mutation within the ecology, like bugs benefically mutating enmass to become resistant to antbiotics.

A possible catch in generalising a closed model is missing-out on a third-party catalyst [waiting to be discovered], analagous to titration in Chemistry: i.e., the change could be external to the DNA/RNA model. Experimental design should allow for a testable and falsifiable model, say by altnerating potential catalysts and observing outcomes

"Other patterns that evolutionary theory predicts ... been supported by many scientific fields including taxonomic biology and geology and genetics. They are corroborative

To a large extent the theory is explanataory, and even adapative to actual observations, rather than predictive. That's the danger when you take the future bit out of alleged predictions. Even to the extent they are genuinely corroborative, that does not make the theory scientific.

"One example of a 'prediction' is that given the observations X, the theory predicts that pattern Y

This could be the trivial case of Y=X. That is, you simply preict that the patterns you have seen will be seen in the future. It is of no value, especially from a scientific perspective.

"your dinosaur experiment page is an excellent example of a strawman

That argument has actually been made against me numerous times. The refutation of it clarifies a point regarding the impossibility of falsifying a prediction with an indefinite time period attached.

"Given any alternative explanations to evolution, it's the most scientific one that explains the origin of species.

Lack of an alternative theory does not make evolution scientific. Whether a theory is scientific does not hinge in any way on the veracity of alternative theories. Using this logic, until evolution came along, 'God made it so' was a scientific theory, then became unscientific when evolution was dreamt up - it's status as scientific changed even though nothing about the theory changed.

You appear to be falling into the trap of trying to show that evolution is scientific by showing it is correct, or 'most likely'. Whether a theory is correct and whether it is scientific are two completely separate issues. In fact if a theory is scientific that makes it pretty much certain that it is wrong.

"What is done is to challenge them with a mutagenic .....

You are missing the point completely about falsification of beneficial mutations. Whatever outcome such experiments produce, there is a gaping logical flaw in any conclusions regarding beneficial mutation. Going over the procedure in greater detail won't make the logical flaw go away.

I'm sorry, Boaz, but you don't get away that easily.

My point was not about Hicks Photon at all. Anyone could have made the same mistake, hearing a random name on the radio in connection with some esoteric topic.

I was drawing your attention to the entirely fictitious story that you appended to the name, simply in order to make a - let's face it, fairly trivial - point about the attitude of the establishment to a new idea.

You invented the whole bit about "when he first postulated it, he was ridiculed as some kind of nutter :) (by his peers in the science field)"

That's the bit you should apologize for, not mishearing a name - that's a total cop-out.

Why do you do this?

How do you expect to get away with it, time after time? Because it is not the first time I have challenged your throwaway statements, presented as fact, that have turned out to be entirely the figment of your imagination.

Are you indeed so bereft of illustrative material that you have to make it up?

It should not be the responsibility of the readers of your posts to check the veracity or accuracy of everything you write. But the reality is that you make so many contentious statements, with such an air of absolute certainty, that I for one feel forced to do so every so often.

It does nothing for your credibility.

In fact, rather than put this down to a "whack-a-boaz" mentality, you should be grateful that someone cares enough to correct you when you stray so far from the path of honesty.

It's just my way of caring for the state of your soul.

And freediver, I think you have made a very strong point. Possibly without understanding it.

>>Using this logic, until evolution came along, 'God made it so' was a scientific theory<<

Absolutely. Then it became just another superseded concept.

"Absolutely. Then it became just another superseded concept."

'God made it so' was never a scientific theory and has never been subjected to empirical investigation. Superceded does not mean unscientific. You are confusing whether a theory is scientific with whether it is correct, or whether it has academic support. As a theory it is no different to how it always was and is no more or less scientific than it always was. You cannot come up with a meaningful definition of scientific that hinges on whether a theory is correct or accepted. A genuinely scientific theory is scientific from the start, otherwise you would have the absurd situation of almost all researchers working with theories that are not scientific.

Newtonian mechanics for example is still a scientific theory even though it is wrong. There are plenty of areas outside of biology where you cannot conveniently replace 'God made it so' with 'evolution made it so' or 'that can be explained in evolutionary terms.' Every question about physics that is answered raises more and more questions. It is absurd to suggest that 'God made it so' is a valid scientific response to the question 'Why does the Higgs Boson behave the way it does?'. It is by not even considering non-scientific theories that science is able to achieve so much. Should scientists start publishing papers about the role God played in the creation of the Higgs Boson, or should they ignore the theory and try to come up with a scientific one?

freediver,

Whether you have had the dinosaur experiment aimed at you many times, matters not. It is a flawed argument and repeating it only refutes the argument itself, not evolution.

You continue to misrepresent the terms 'prediction' and 'experiment', and much of your argument shows that you not only not understand many concepts within the theory, you deliberately misrepresent them to suit your argument.

The Y=X thing is an example in point, you have deliberately misrepresented the case here. Scientists do not make predictions like this. Take a look at insecticide resistance gene frequency modelling. That is an example of a semi-controlled experiment with a known selection pressure, one that can be varied in the environment by humans.

However, I am fairly certain that nothing I say will make much of an impression on you here.

Thus, I might make a suggestion. If you feel very comfortable with the concepts and your argument, why not try and write an article for peer review? I'm sure there are some very good journals that would like to publish it. Might I suggest the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (or related type journal)? If they reject it, you can always address the reviewers comments and resubmit it. Then you would have a handy published reference on your blog, wouldn't that be nice?

Further to Oliver, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:32:41 AM above:

Freedriver,

Would you please explain what you mean by falsification? Thanks.

If you are thinking of Karl Popper and "Conjectures and Refutations", then I would posit that Popper was warning against self-confirmation in interpreting observations. Honest scientists do not take path.

Popper was arguing against people like Jung whom take an a priori position then seek confirmation. Arguing from Design is another example; look God made that beautiful mountain or than majestic river and millions of stars, the complexity cannot be happenstance.

Good science doesn't work from a priori positions, albeit a scientist might have an insight to be confirmed or rejected via scientific method.

One could design an experment, with selection controls, [say for maturity], where several generations of cells are tested for hyperthemic resistence. Herein, it could be postulated that populations of resistant strains follow common lineages. The experiment would be falsifiable.

It's falsifiability, not falisification. It refers to the ability to conduct an experiment that would prove a theory wrong, if it were wrong. Falsification refers to actually proving it wrong.

"Popper was warning against self-confirmation in interpreting observations. Honest scientists do not take path.

True, but it is inevitable in other fields like natural history.

"One could design an experment..... The experiment would be falsifiable.

Correction: the theory would be falsifiable. This is a test of the theory of natural selection, not of evolution.

Bugsy:

"Whether you have had the dinosaur experiment aimed at you many times, matters not.

Didn't you say it is a strawman? If it has been made, then it isn't a strawman, hence it isn't flawed logically. Have you come up with some other flaw and forgotten to mention it?

"You continue to misrepresent the terms 'prediction' and 'experiment',

No I don't. Merely insisting this is the case does not make it so. Do try to put together a reasoned argument.

"The Y=X thing is an example in point, you have deliberately misrepresented the case here.

It is vague. I have not delbieratley misrepresented it. You have just failed to prove anything with it. There is nothing there to misrepresent yet.

"Scientists do not make predictions like this.

Correct, but natural historians do.

"That is an example of a semi-controlled experiment....

How does this relate to whether evolution is a scientific theory? Nothing in your explanation indicatesd whether you are referring to natural selection or evolution.

"why not try and write an article for peer review?

I'll think about it. It is a lot of work getting published and I would not take it up lightly. Do you know anyone who might be interested on co-authoring such a piece?

In the meantime the articles I have written can be reviewed by anyone. Responses are welcome at the forum and are linked to from the articles. Note that this is a fully functional forum, not the 'leave a comment' style annotations you get on most off-the-shelf blog software.

As I keep telling Boaz, simply changing the topic because you dislike the question doesn't move the discussion forward.

>>'God made it so' was never a scientific theory and has never been subjected to empirical investigation<<

Let's go back to your original point.

>>Whether a theory is scientific does not hinge in any way on the veracity of alternative theories. Using this logic, until evolution came along, 'God made it so' was a scientific theory, then became unscientific when evolution was dreamt up - it's status as scientific changed even though nothing about the theory changed.<<

Prior to the advent of the theory of evolution, the populace did not have an alternative to "God made it so". There were no alternative theories, with or without veracity. In this case, why is it unreasonable to treat "God made it so" as a scientific theory?

Under "God made it so", everything could be explained.

The first Unified Theory, in fact.

So tell me, in its time, how was it distinguishable from any other scientific theory? What characteristics, apart from hindsight, cause "God made it so" to be non-scientific.

Because it is only further experience, experimentation and deductive reasoning that creates that hindsight.

Just as with any other scientific theory you can name.

Pericles...I think your last post was addressed to another person? (after the first bit about me)

but to follow up on what you said.... about 'God made it so' being the prevailing wisdom until an 'alternative' came about i.e. the scientific explanation... I don't see them as 'alternatives'... I see one being the theological summary of what science describes in detail.

"In the beginning, God created" is a very easy concept to grasp.

But the detailed description of say transposons, and DNA etc.. is more along the lines of "How God made it" than 'did' God make it.

To me, the over-riding framework is based on the intervention by God in His world, ultimately having its greatest expression in the resurrection of Christ.

But given that you don't have (at this point :) a lot of faith in that reality, one would be overly optimistic to think you would factor that historic reality into your perception of chemical processes.

Well.. not a lot to be gained by just 'thumping' your brain with repeated assertions to that effect, so, I'll resort to the proven method of praying for you.
blessings.

"Prior to the advent of the theory of evolution, the populace did not have an alternative to "God made it so". There were no alternative theories, with or without veracity. In this case, why is it unreasonable to treat "God made it so" as a scientific theory?

It has nothing to do with what is reasonable. It is about what is possible. You cannot conduct an experiment that would prove that God did not exist, if he doesn't exist. It's liks you're asking, if a viollage has no oranges, can they treat an apple like an orange.

"Under "God made it so", everything could be explained.

Which is why it is useless from a scientific theory.

"So tell me, in its time, how was it distinguishable from any other scientific theory? What characteristics, apart from hindsight, cause "God made it so" to be non-scientific.

It's not falsifiable.

"Because it is only further experience, experimentation and deductive reasoning that creates that hindsight.

Wrong. Falsifiability is a test you can apply with forsight.

"about 'God made it so' being the prevailing wisdom until an 'alternative' came about i.e. the scientific explanation...

Prevailing opinion does not mean scientific.

"To me, the over-riding framework is based on the intervention by God in His world, ultimately having its greatest expression in the resurrection of Christ.

That's really nice, but it has nothing to do with science.

"one would be overly optimistic to think you would factor that historic reality into your perception of chemical processes.

The historical reality reflects history. Chemical processes can be understood perfectly well in a historical vaccuum.

"Well.. not a lot to be gained by just 'thumping' your brain with repeated assertions to that effect, so, I'll resort to the proven method of praying for you.

These repeated assertions are completely beside the point. God made it so is still the only explanation available at the fringes of modern science, but that doesn't make it a valid theory for scientific enquiry. A definition of science that does not distinguish it from the study of history or religion is valueless.

You miss the point, freediver. I suspect, deliberately.

The key phrase was "in its time".

"in its time, how was [God made it so] distinguishable from any other scientific theory? What characteristics, apart from hindsight, cause "God made it so" to be non-scientific."

Your response was: "It's not falsifiable"

True, but irrelevant.

Place yourself in a civilization where evolution had not been contemplated. The only theory, the totally accepted wisdom of the civilization in which you lived, is that "God did it".

You have used scientific theory for other stuff - physics, chemistry, mechanics and so on - and understand the concept of falsifiability.

Within that scenario - and without, as I said, the benefit of hindsight - how is your "God did it" theory distinguishable from any of the myriad other theories about the world around you?

In other words what - except for hindsight - prevents it from being considered a sound scientific theory?

And Boaz, I fully agree that it is not necessary to jettison belief in God simply because a theory of evolution appears that is different from the Adam's rib version.

So long as you accept that having determined an evolutionary theory that disposes of the creation of Adam and Eve as fully-formed human beings, you cannot maintain those two versions in parallel.

Unfortunately, so many people are dependent for their self-image on the "realities" expressed in ancient scriptures that they find it difficult to separate the concept of religious belief from those books.

freediver, do you have access to a library?

I have have a reference for you that explains far better than I ever could:

Mary B. Williams (1982) The importance of prediction testing in evolutionary_biology. Erkenntnis_Volume17_Number_3_pp291-306

“But if prediction testing is so central to evolutionary biology, why have so many reputable philosophers concluded that there are no falsifiable predictions of the theory? The predictions which evolutionary biologists test, and whose results force the revision or rejection of theories, are rendered invisible by a series of factors: (1) Evolutionary predictions are not about organisms (as we intuitively expect them to be). (2) The theory and its most relevant background theories are relatively weak (preventing clear falsifications). (3) Evolutionary predictions are not about the future (so biologists frequently do not think of them as predictions). (4) A particular empirical study is frequently only a small part of a test of a prediction. (5) Some research traditions are seen by biologists as refining, rather than testing, a hypothesis.”


“[An example presented] is typical of the falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory in being about the presently discoverable results of past evolutionary processes rather than about the future results of present evolutionary processes. (These presently discoverable results might concern fossils, and the prediction might then be seen as a prediction about the past.) It is not clear to biologists inexperienced in epistemological analysis that such condictions and retrodictions are predictions which can legitimately be used in tests of the theory. For example, the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr asks: "Is such correct guessing of the results of past events genuine prediction?". For the philosopher the answer is clear: such 'guesses' are genuine predictions of the theory if they are deducible from the theory plus a set of boundary conditions, and if the results were not known before the deduction was carried out. But biologists, unfamiliar with the philosophically relevant definition of 'prediction', and influenced by the fact that the paradigms of prediction in Newtonian physics are predictions about the future, conclude that, since evolutionary biology makes no predictions about the future, it makes no predictions.
(con't)

(con'td)

"There are two interesting reasons for the lack of predictions about the future. The most obvious one is that prediction of future events is possible only when the relevant future boundary conditions are predictable; such predictions in physics are usually made about systems in which the experimenter can control the state of the relevant boundary conditions, but we can neither control nor predict the boundary conditions for an evolutionarily significant amount of time (e.g., centuries). The less obvious, but more interesting, reason is that few, if any, predictions of evolutionary theory are of the form 'If the state of the system at time t o is So, the state of the system at time t0 + h will be S1. Except for a few special cases (e.g., if X is extinct at t0, X will be extinct at t0 + h) predictions of this form are possible if and only if some of the fundamental laws of the theory are differential equations with respect to time. As I have argued elsewhere, there is reason to believe that none of the evolutionary laws either are differential equations or have clock time as a primitive concept, though some are difference equations with generation time as a variable and can be crudely approximated by differential equations. Thus one would not expect predictions about events at a specific future time to play a central role in evolutionary biology, although they do play a central role in physics. (This is an intrinsic difference between physics and evolutionary biology, but it is not a difference in the logical structure.) Part of the reason we failed to recognize evolutionary predictions is that we were looking for predictions which looked like the predictions of physics."

There's much more wonderful stuff in there that is of full relevance, so I would suggest that you have a gander before you start writing your article.

If you cannot access it, I may be able to email it to you.

Pericles:

"Your response was: "It's not falsifiable"

"True, but irrelevant.

We are discussing whether the theory is scientific. Whether it is falsifiable is relevant because that is how science is defined. Whether something was accepted in the past is not relevant. If you think it is, please try to come up with a meaningful definition of science based around this, rather than merely insisting it is relevant, and I will show why it does not capture what is generally understood as scientific. On the other hand if you are trying to make a point unrelated to whether evolution is a scientific theory, please accept my apologies.

Bugsy:

“[An example presented] ... about the presently discoverable results of past evolutionary processes ...

From a scientific perspective, being theoretically able to stumble across contradictory evidence does not make a theory falsifiable. You have to be able to design an experiment, not go searching for evidence. Otherwise nothing distinguishes science from history. Furthermore, the evidence gained in this way has often contradicted the predictions made based on the theory of evolution. The theory was simply adapted and new predictions made to match what had already been observed. As I pointed out earlier, this is ineivtalbe when you take the future part out of predictions. You end up passing off explanations of what has already been observed as predictions that you were going to observe those things. Either that, or in a circuitous manner you end up predicting that the patterns you have observed in the apst will be observed in the future. Neither has any scientific value.

"The most obvious one is that prediction of future events is possible only when the relevant future boundary conditions are predictable

I agree with this. It is one of the main shortcomings that separates evolution from scientific theories. This distinction is not merely limited to physics as the author implies, but to science in general. The distinction does not necessitate equations that are differentiable with respect to time. Mendelian genetics for example does not require differentiable equations, just a bit of statistics.

freediver, I would suggest that you read the entire article before commenting on it further.

Do you wish me to send it to you?

As for the original question, have we answered the question that supposedly "stumped Dawkins"?

From Boazy's comments it appears that we may have, at least to his satisfaction.

freediver on the other hand seems to want to argue black and blue that what goes for physics, goes for everything, while that may be true to a point, I think that the point is missed on the relationship of the theory and phenomena to the observer (outlined in the above paper, I might add). In that:

"The problem here is primarily that the events instantiating the hypothesis are not ‘human-sized’ - that is, we cannot see them as a whole, in a single gestalt, but instead must build up our picture of them by putting together tens, scores, or hundreds of human-sized events. (An atom-sized scientist would have a similar problem in testing Boyles' Law relating the temperature, volume, and pressure of a gas; he would have to make hundreds of individual measurements of velocity and then summarize these diverse velocities in an average. To the human sized scientist temperature is a simple, non-statistical, property; to the atom-sized scientist it is a statistical average.) Thus this problem is not an indication that evolutionary theory has a different intrinsic structure than, say, Newtonian physics; it is rather an indication that the relationship between us humans and the phenomena of. evolutionary theory is different from the relationship between us and the phenomena of Newtonian theory. As a practical matter, this relationship makes falsification more difficult because we cannot run controlled experiments, as well as because of the statistical nature of the human-sized events through which we build up our picture of the instantiating event. But this pragmatic problem does not spring from a difference in the logical structure."

Freedriver,

[1]

I am happy to accept that experimentation is the means to test theory, and, that hypotheses are a set of statements to test the theory by experimentation. Herein, I accept that a theory can be falsifiable via experiment including observation.

Some definitions on ontaining the status of "theory" [not a supposition] requires some level validation.

*

[2]

Background: Humans have relatively poor kidney systems compared to other animals. We need to be near water:

Jacob Bronowski provides interesting comment in his book, The Ascent of Man:

“When we find in the sludge of two million years ago the creature who became man, we are struck by the differences between his skeleton and ours – by the development of the skull for instance. So, naturally, we expect the animals of the savannah to have changed greatly. But the fossil record shows this is not so. Look as the hunter does at the Topi antelope does now. The ancestor of Man that hunted its ancestor would at once recognise the Topi antelope now. But he would not recognise the [modern] hunter as his own descendant.”

[Relatedly, the Grevy’s zebra adapted/changed towards the new ecology by natural selection.]

The Topi’s ability to cope with the savannah during drought meant it was fit to survive that ecology; yet it was the primate-human line that developed greater evolutionary diversity. We, primate-humans, didn’t evolve towards drought resistance: We developed more efficacious brains to handle the problems, yet we still have poor kidneys and need water regularly. We have evolved as the dominant species on the planet, yet the natural selection required to meet potential extinction was resolved not by natural section in context with the savannah ecology, rather we evolved to where we now control environments.

For the Topi survival of the fitest in its ecology meant it did not have to evolve, natural selection and the environment, ensured its stagnation. Contrarily, we primate-humans evolved.

Bugsy,

Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin [palaeo-antropologist] make forward predictions on the non-survivality of other species and ecological systems based on the expansion of humans. In Australia, the arrival of humans c. 60,000 BP is complented by the extinction of many species. "only if we learn from our evolvionary past, and critically examine our present, can we avert the Sixth [Mass] Extinction" to occur on Earth.

From earlier posts:

The fact alone that you insist religious explanations are scientific should indicate to you that the definition (if you even have one) has problems.

"In other words what - except for hindsight - prevents it from being considered a sound scientific theory?

Falsifiability distinguishes it from scientific theories. This does not require hindsight. Note that I am not claiming that evolution is not a sound theory. I am claiming that it is not a sicentific theory. It might assist your udnerstanding if you dropped the emotional baggage and unrelated values which you attach to the label 'scientific'.

Latest posts:

"Do you wish me to send it to you?

I don't see any need yet.

"freediver on the other hand seems to want to argue black and blue that what goes for physics, goes for everything

Strawman. I have not been arguing that. In fact in my last post I said the opposite.

"Thus this problem is not an indication that evolutionary theory has a different intrinsic structure than, say, Newtonian physics

Yes it is. Plenty of scientific theories require statistical analysis of data and hundreds of experiments before a clear picture is observed. That does not make them unscientific. Evolution is fundamentally different because it is not hunderds or even thousands of experiments that are used, but observations. These are the tools of the historian, not the scientist. Furthermore each individual observation must first be interpretted with the assumption that the theory is correct before they are of value.

"As a practical matter, this relationship makes falsification more difficult because we cannot run controlled experiments

It makes it unfalsifiable, hence unscientific. Rather than changing the definition of science to include this theory that so many hold dear, it makes far more sense from a philosophical perspective to simply concede that it isn't scientific.

I note that you still have not proposed any alternative definition of science.

Oliver:

"Herein, I accept that a theory can be falsifiable via experiment including observation.

Do you mean observation in the context of experiment, or observation as an experiment by itself?

Actually, freediver I find that your original definition of science doesn't really need to change, but rather the definition of the terms used within it. The distinctions that you have made between 'experiments' and 'observations' and also what constitutes a 'prediction', are artificial and limiting and thus misrepresentative of the science. They are of course limited for a purpose, because with them you are able to continue your argument.

And so we come full circle as to the debate over semantics and definitions, I still find yours limiting. The weight of evidence is on my side, as are the philosophical and theoretical papers attached to evolutionary theory.

It doesn't matter anyway, because the science shall continue to evolve with or without your scholarly input. Also, that you don't see a need for research into lengthy counter-arguments that directly contradict your own, speaks volumes about your attitude to real science.

Freediver,

Observation is part of the experiment [Schrödinger].

Cheers,

O.

Thanks Oliver.

From earlier posts:

You are effectively arguing that because evolution is scientific the definition of science should be expanded to include it, while totally ignoring all the other obviously unscientific theories that would also be included. Except of course for the bit where you conceded that 'God made it so' was scientific, which would make it still a scientific theory in other contexts, while making Newtonian mechanics unscientific.

Bugsy's latest post:

"but rather the definition of the terms used within it.

Go ahead then. Redefine them. Perhaps you want to broaden the definition of experiment to include observations. It would mean you could call evolution a scientific theory, but it would have the same problem of including too much else. It would also destroy any meaning to the term.

So... still waiting on alternative definitions.

"The weight of evidence is on my side

You mean people agree with you? I don't see how you can claim to have some kind of 'evidence' when you haven't even supplied the alternative definitions your argument would have to rest upon.

"lengthy counter-arguments that directly contradict your own, speaks volumes about your attitude to real science.

The argument does not directly contradict my own. I agree with parts of it and have pointed out the flaws in the bits I don't agree with. This is a question of philosophy, not science. It's about logic, not evidence or data. There is no need to read pages and pages of it when the brief paragraphs you have copied are enough for me to point out the errors of logic. If you cannot explain an argument in your own words, chances are you don't understand it. 'Here, read this paper and you will be convinced' is the last resort people use when they are loosing an argument they don't understand, but still think a long winded argument somehow holds water even though they cannot figure out why. If I were to read the whole thing and respond by saying it adds nothing to the debate beyond what I have already refuted, how would you respond?

Freediver,

I drawing a distinction between natural selection and evolution; wherein the survival of the fittest expection was unrealised for humans, supporting evolution outside of the bounds of natural selection in context with the savannah drought and relevant anatomy [kidneys].

I didn't concede "God made so", as I would rate 6.5/7 on Dawkin's Atheism pole. 1/7 or 7/7 suggest infaliability and I wont go there.

Newtonian Laws are valid, within non-relativistic referial frames.Einstein's Theory of Relativity is limited, it doesn't have solutions for antimatter: e.g., positrons. &#8730;E2=M2C4 is better [Davies], with two solutions [+ & -], but that doesn't account for momentum as known to particle physics [Penrose]. Building on limitations is what science does. It is a good thing.

A simple question. Trust me, there is nothing simple when it comes to creation. Ever since (thera)yes its wrong) slammed into our planet, and created our new world, and the moon, life began in the salty waters. This is painful for me to spell this out, but the paleo world, is the only one true course of thinking that's makes any sense.
( And you know you all have it) ( god has served its purpose) None of us have all the answer's, but we are close with.. ( give them time and understanding or commensurate) and lets not forget the word COMMONSENCE. Now you are making me look at my bible' THE Dictionary.

I have no intention of 'reinventing the wheel' as it were. I have no need to redefine your concepts, that's already been done a long time ago, and not by me. Many types of experiments were outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment (as a guide). What can constitute a 'prediction' has already been covered. All you have done is limit them again to suit your argument.

My reference to a previous paper was supposed to serve as an indication that this argument of yours is neither new nor accepted as valid under modern interpretations of science.

I reposted some of the material within it, so as to highlight what I thought were some pertinent points. To summarily dismiss it by countering excerpts, rather than the whole piece is to do a great disservice to both the author and yourself. I do not expect you to be convinced, but you really do need to understand that this debate has been done a long time ago, the concepts properly redefined, and contrary to your assertion we don't see any meaning destroyed in what is considered scientific by including too much. When was that supposed to happen?

All I see so far is that some of us seem to have actually covered relevant literature in response to the topic. In fact, in all of your writings I have hardly seen any attributions to what are essentially old ideas rehashed and long ago dispensed with. So if you actually could show that you have read relevant reviewed articles on the topic in question and then refuted them properly, that in itself would be something, and indeed worthy of publication. Thus science progresses.

If all you have is blog, and you get hit by a bus tomorrow, it's gone. But I suspect that your intended audience does not include actual scientists nor philosophers, but fellow bloggers.

One needs to publish, for we are all but dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. And no, I don't know anyone who would be willing to co-author, and if you really need one, I wish you luck in finding them.

I don't agree with the first assumption of this thread.
"evolution' is based on the premise that information in the genome 'increases' and becomes more complex over time. (if not, then we would have 'devolution')"
I don't think that is the case at all.
"Devolution" (??) does and can happen, like humans loosing the ability to produce Vitamin C. If you want to put a value laden word like "Devolution" on it
Evolution has never said a species gets "better" or more complex.(Although there is much argument about the latter.)
The WA 3.5 billion year Old Stromatolites in Shark Bay WA are doing fine thank you just as they did 3.5 billion years ago.