Has replicable data been shown to support evolution?
An OP of few words.
I feel there’s an intriguing debate in there somewhere, but I can’t really grasp exactly what you mean by replicable data. Could you perhaps provide a little more context ?
By replicable data I assume you mean an experiment that has been performed, published in a a scientific journal and that another, independent resaearch group has verified with data confirming the original experiment. Right?
Wow. I don’t think even the first part has been done yet.
Has replicable data been shown to support the idea that ice ages occur?
Ages ago, I read about some kangaroos which had gotten lose in Hawaii of all places. These 'roos had a fur coloration which made them stand out in their environment, within a relatively few number of generations, the 'roos being born all had coloration which enabled them to better blend into their environment. Evidence of microevolution which supports the observations of gypsy moths changing their coloration in response to changes in their environment caused by air pollution (which colored the trees gypsy moths hung out on, thus making the gypsy moths stick out like a sore thumb until they changed their color). Not exactly a classically controlled experiment in either case, but certainly not ones to be thought of as being manipulated by some mad, genetically engineering scientist hellbent on proving evolution or breeding giant monsters.
Why do you need replicable data to show ice ages? Is there some reason the geological evidence is insufficient? How would you reproduce that in a lab, anyway?
I’m pretty sure some lab work has been done that supports evolution, but I’m not a biologist. If speciation has been observed in labs (among microorganisms), as I’ve seen some posters here indicate, would this cover it?
John Mace, that is exactly what I meant.
I thought there was an experiment that observed speciation.
Marley: It (ice ages) was an analogy of something that is not replicable in the lab, but nonetheless treated as scientific fact.
Kong: There could be some such experiment, but I’m not familiar with it and I’d be pretty surprised if it were actually so.
Nitpicks, maybe-
- There’s no such thing as microevolution. The whole micro/macro thing is, from what I can tell, made up by fundamentalists who can’t deny that evolution occurs, but want to ignore the logic conclusion (that it’s a long-running process, that we have a common ancestor with apes, etc.).
- I think the example above has been refuted to some degree anyway - I know it was a famous case, but I seem to remember hearing it had been somewhat discredited.
There’s some evidence that the researcher didn’t use the most rigorous of methods, but AFAIK, no one’s come along with enough data to throw the whole thing out as of yet. (Now that I’ve posted it, some Doper will come along with a cite which proves me wrong, of course.)
Wait, there is no micro/macro evolution? I thought microevolution was evolution within a species and macro involved evolution from one species to another. Am I wrong?
Major kong: I think the implication is that microevolution necessarily leads to macroevolution, so the two are really the same phenomenon and you can’t discount one while accepting the other as fundies tend to do. I am interperting things right Marley23?
Yes, that’s what I meant. I’ve never heard a biologist or anyone else dealing with science use those terms. Maybe it IS an accepted term and I’ve missed it - though I don’t think so - but the point is it’s the same phenomenon and you can’t accept one and reject the other.
Nope. Microevolution is a term coined by a biologist, and is still frequently used in scientific journals worldwide. It undoubtedly exists and is perfectly acceptable terminology.
Firstly they were peppered moths, not gypsy moths.
And the initial conclusions were certainly flawed. Refuted probably isn’t the correct term. More a case of subsequent data modifying the theory. There is no doubt that peppered moths changed colour frequencies in response to environmental change. Exactly what the change was and why they changed is somewhat more complicated than originally surmised. : http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm
Back to the OP.
There are numerous definitions of ‘evolution’. ( See http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1997/oct/opin_971013.html is you want a good discussion on the subject. Requires registration, but it’s free and seems to be spam free.) The broadest definition is simply ‘descent with modification’. Almost as broad is ‘a change in gene frequencies’.
If we’re working with those definitions then there have been countless examples of replicable data supporting evolution. The earliest examples would be the selective breeding programs that produced domesticated dogs from wolves. Desecnt with modification, pure and simple.
In more recent times there have been similar selective breeding programs that have produced tropicalised cattle, temperatised camels and llamas with extra thick wool. All fully documented in the appropriate journals, and all replicated. Indisputable replicated ‘descent with modification’.
There have also recently been examples of selective breeding for specific genes, rather than phenotypes. Again all published and all replicated.
Of course these aren’t ‘natural’. You just can’t get replicated ‘natural’ results because nature doesn’t allow replication. However we do have evidence of ‘descent with modification’ in wild populations of animals, including populations subject to culling of the largest individuals becoming smaller, or introduced species changing in environments free of predators and disease. The tests conducted to establish these facts have been replicated.
So I guess that ends the ‘debate’ using those two definitions.
If you want to run with a more restrictive definition of evolution, then it’s up to you to provide one.
Ok then. Good to get things straight about that bit. I’m sticking with the bit about the two being inseparable examples of the same phenomenon, though.
I think you’re missing the point Blake. Though a distinction might be made in terminology, the point is that the underlying principles are the same.
Ok, I have something new to ask (is it clear I am arguing with creationist yet?).
After I told him that evolution doesn’t really address the creation of life he sent me this:
“True, but evolutionists spend most of their time attempting to account for the “spark” called life. Several years ago they delved into quantum mechanics and physics since all previous known facts fell woefully short. It wasn’t long before this too hit a brick wall.
If you keep up with evolutionists and their studies, you will soon realize it is recognized as pure theory more so than ever in history. Most scientists have given up as every new approach turns into just another dead end. I remember the fanfare that followed the theoretical introduction of “mutated genes” into the equation. Brick wall.
Read some detailed, well researched work of evolutionists. The most common phrases are “could have” may have” “perhaps” “if” etc etc etc. Theor*y
Personally as a fundamentalist Christian I don’t have a problem with evolution. God said He created man in His own image. He is yet to explain exactly how He accomplished this or how long it took, since he knows it is beyond man’s limited comprehension to start with."
Is any of this true? Ok the “could have” and “perhaps” is probably true since scientists just can’t know for sure. But the stuff about quantum mechanics and physics? I don’t remember this. Or “mutated genes” and hitting a brick wall?
This is separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t deal with how life STARTED, that’s a separate question. It’s absolutely one that is being worked on and has not been settled - but it’s stupid to imply that it’s hopeless.
Evolution has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or physics either. Very different branches of science. One of the many failings of creationism - especially the ‘young Earth’ kind - is that it requires everything we know about both to be false. :rolleyes:
Sounds like another idiot who doesn’t know what a scientific theory is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It’s a theory because it’s an explanation, it’s a fact because it’s true.
We’re learning more than ever about most of this stuff. There have been other threads about evolution here that talk about very interesting new developments - for example, we now have reasonable estimates of when humans diverged from chimps (5 to 6 million years ago) and when chimps diverged from gorillas (6 to 7 million). Is this dimwit implying that creationism is increasing in popularity among scientists? Bullshit.
It’s a fact that mutations occur. I think what he is doing is referencing the debate about gradual evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. While this has not been resolved, the debate does not at all falsify evolution. It’s just a matter of figuring out exactly how it happened.
Of course it’s “could have.” It’s science, so we’re still learning, and no one was there, so there is extrapolation going on. Again, tell numbnuts to find out what a Theory - a scientific Theory - is. It’s NOT a guess.
Sort of. The problem is not so much the terms, but how you are understanding them. You seem to see them as hard and fast distinctions. But the fact is, “species” is no longer a truly meaningful distinction in the way that people think of there being certain set “kinds” of animals. It’s a vague and fuzzy term, rather than an expression of some deep essentialism. There is no “boundary” that separates species in such a way that evolving from one species into another is a new or bigger leap. In the continuum of change, there is nothing in actual reality that demarcates when a change is “within” a species" and “into another species.” Almost all “new” species are defined in retrospect, not because of any special event that marks a crossover. Interbreeding is one major component, but even that often happens very gradually, with lots of intermediates that can often breed with both new and old species, even though they cannot breed with each other.
This sentance alone is a tip off. It calls up images of there being some cabal of all evolutionists who are now ferverntly working on this “problem.” But in reality, very few scientists are actually working on this particular issue (abiogenesis) compared to those that are working on evolution proper. They’re very different fields, not least of all because abiogenesis really requires tons of knowledge about chemistry rather than mostly biology or zoology or population dynamics, and so on.
So what this guy really means is “this is the problem I have with the idea of evolution, and so I assume that it is a huge scandalous deal for evolution as a scientific theory.” By “evolutionists” he probably means either some people he’s met on the internet, or some ridiculous conspiracy-theory image he’s read in some creationist literature.
Silliest of all is the “spark of life” idea. No evolutionary scientist is searching for a “spark of life” in the sense that this guy means (some sort of singular magical power that transmutes unliving objects into living ones). This is purely his OWN fantasy of what needs to be explained, rather than an actual problem in the theory. Most scienstists agree that the idea of some hard and fast dividing line between life and unlife is an essentialist throwback of little actual utility. So no one is searching for it: they are instead searching for the possible mechanisms by which increasingly more complex compounds could come to be and eventually start self-replicating. This is not a “spark,” it is a particular chemical/mechanical process, and probably not even a singular one, but a whole series of them with various modifications.
I don’t know what he’s talking about here. It’s not like physics was developed only “several years ago” or that the ideas of QM are new players at the table of science. And I don’t know what he means by “all previous facts fell woefully short.” Which facts?
I don’t know what he claims to be “remembering.” What does he mean by “mutated genes”? The idea that genes mutate is neither new nor controversial, nor a brick wall.
This is pretty goofy. Of course the newest work is going to more speculative than the established body of work. But most work done isn’t trying desperately to defend evolution, as this guy implies, and then only coming up short with speculative theories. Most current research is trying to find out things we don’t yet understand, with evolution already being so well established that it itself is rarely even a matter of direct discussion.
Certainly no problem with this philosophy.
Again, those references are so vague and confused that it’s hard to know what he’s talking about. As I explained, the “could have” and “perhaps” that he seems to be reffering to has little or nothing to do with the fact of evolution and common descent. Every single field of scientific research includes speculation. Astronomers have plenty of “could have” and “perhaps” in their papers about quasars, but that doesn’t mean that the community has any actual doubts about the evidence for the EXISTENCE of quasars. What they’re speculating on are more obscure details of various other related problems, all of which are interesting, but no matter how they come out, have very little chance of calling into question the fact that there ARE quasars.
Apos, I’ve been spending a lot of time on a Christian Message board and let me just say how refreshing it is to read such eloquent, logical, and reasoned comments as your own after having been exposed to their vacuum of thought.