29 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is probably a bit better though Bosse.
You're not an expert either.
Here's some stuff on falsification from talk.origins (scroll down a bit):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html
By the way, is the notion of falsification (introduced by Popper, I think?) universally accepted among scientists?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesScience can not make deductive fallacies?!? They do it all the time. Logic applies to science just as it does to math and sociology. A fallacy is fallacy. Induction does not negate deduction.
You are clueless. Experimental science does not proceed via deduction, so it cannot make deductive fallacies. The experiment you describe is a fine example of inductive reasoning, and one you apply every time you take an umbrella when you see clouds in the sky.
If I take an umbrella outside, that does not prove it is going to rain. And if it does rain, that does not prove that taking an umbrella outside had anything to do with it raining.
The inductive processes of science does not prove truth. So TOE is not true, it is only possible. But that is not it's main problem, it's main problem is that as a scientific theory goes, it bites.
A good scientific theory uses deductive logic. It uses "modes tollen". If theory A infers outcome B, and not B, then not A. Now apply this to TOE. TOE predicts pretty much everything, therefore there is no possible "not B". All good scientific theories will make clear definitive predictions which if found untrue, will disprove the theory. If you can not falsify, it's bad science.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThank you both (incl. scottishn) for the link. I'll read it when I have a little more time on my hands.
You're not an expert either.
Here's some stuff on falsification from talk.origins (scroll down a bit):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html
By the way, is the notion of falsification (introduced by Popper, I think?) universally accepted among scientists?
One quick observation though - all the falsification examples in the link you provided depend on the principle of 'gradualism'. For instance, a verified Pegasus would be a falsification because wings in birds and fore-limbs in mammals are homologous. However, gradualism itself would be falsified by radical mutation - which is part of the punctuated equilibrium model (something I guess a pharma researcher would be familiar with.
So, even if we did find a Pegasus, it would simply be the gradualist model that would be falsified, not ToE per se.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerPunctuated equilibrium is actually a reasonable way of explaining what happens during cataclysmic events. The mutation rate is not any higher than the rest of the time, there are just more niches available for the remaining organisms. In effect, selection pressure is slackened and mutation is allowed to 'play'. Of course, it still cannot change things wholesale, because the genetic changes required to change let's say a leg into a wheel are too great to happen in an environment where having half a wheel would still represent too much of a selective disadvantage. It would take changing 100's of genes to change a leg into a wheel, but changing a leg into a wing is easy - you don't change the bone structure, you just modify it.
Thank you both (incl. scottishn) for the link. I'll read it when I have a little more time on my hands.
One quick observation though - all the falsification examples in the link you provided depend on the principle of 'gradualism'. For instance, a verified Pegasus would be a falsification because wings in birds and fore-limbs in mammals are homolog ...[text shortened]... d a Pegasus, it would simply be the gradualist model that would be falsified, not ToE per se.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzHave you never met a person with six fingers on his hand instead of five?
Punctuated equilibrium is actually a reasonable way of explaining what happens during cataclysmic events. The mutation rate is not any higher than the rest of the time, there are just more niches available for the remaining organisms. In effect, selection pressure is slackened and mutation is allowed to 'play'. Of course, it still cannot change things ...[text shortened]... anging a leg into a wing is easy - you don't change the bone structure, you just modify it.
Changing a leg into a wheel is probably too much, but a Pegasus? All you need is a horse with an extra pair of limb-like bones (to begin with, anyway).
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd a huge amount of strengthening bones to accept the stress of flight, as well as huge muscles to flap the wings with enough force to lift the horse and a change in metabolism to give a horse enough energy to power those muscles. Birds can only manage flight because they have hollow bones, a one-way respiratory systems (i.e. they don't breathe in and out like us, their respiratory system is in effect a loop), and a core body temperature of 41C, as opposed to our 37C). If pegasus had hollow bones then he /she /it would not be able to gallop. Likewise our proto-pegasus would have to undergo large changes in both cardiovascular and respiratory systems to generate the necessary energy for flight.
Have you never met a person with six fingers on his hand instead of five?
Changing a leg into a wheel is probably too much, but a Pegasus? All you need is a horse with an extra pair of limb-like bones (to begin with, anyway).
29 Dec 05
Noticed that most of the "predictions" came before the theories that predicted them. How does that work? Hmmm.
If TOE is "life evolved from a common ancester", what prediction can be made from the theory?
If TOE is "genetic changes occur" then what can can be predicted from that?
It TOE is both, then what use is it?
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzAre you saying that proto-birds had all these characteristics (hollow bones, one-way respiratory systems etc.)? If not, then our proto-Pegasus doesn't need them either. The finished Pegasus will need analogous systems, no doubt, but the initial version doesn't. Gradualism can take over from that point.
And a huge amount of strengthening bones to accept the stress of flight, as well as huge muscles to flap the wings with enough force to lift the horse and a change in metabolism to give a horse enough energy to power those muscles. Birds can only manage flight because they have hollow bones, a one-way respiratory systems (i.e. they don't breathe in and ...[text shortened]... ges in both cardiovascular and respiratory systems to generate the necessary energy for flight.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiWell, in that archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago, I suppose I have to give you that one. However, Darwins book was published in 1859, and the first archaeopteryx skeleton wasn't found until 1860. Evolution came first, then evidence was found of the gradual change of reptiles to birds.
Noticed that most of the "predictions" came before the theories that predicted them. How does that work? Hmmm.
If TOE is "life evolved from a common ancester", what prediction can be made from the theory?
If TOE is "genetic changes occur" then what can can be predicted from that?
It TOE is both, then what use is it?
The prediction that a stone, when dropped, would fall to the ground could be made before Newton, but how fast it would fall and why could not.
TOE, life evolved from a common ancestor. Prediction, organisms with more similar genomes will be more closely related and will be more alike. Reality; cladistic analysis, allows organisms to be grouped according to genetic similarities, these tend to closely follow the groups that were previously proposed by physiological zoologist etc. (not always though - sometimes similar structures evolve in distinct groups to solve the same problem (i.e the opposable thumb of the great apes, and the false thumb of panda bears), it's called convergent evolution. Prediction; organisms with which we are closely related may be able to pass on infections to which we'd be susceptable. Reality; AIDS.
Sometimes we don't realise the implications of something like AIDS until its too late (i.e. we only worked out it came from apes after it had mutated to a form that humans could get), but we learned from that and won't make the same mistake again (hopefully) - for example bird flu.
Genetic changes occur. What does this tell us? It tells us that we'll never beat microbes in our war on disease. It also tells us to limit our use of antibiotics, since every time we use them we increase the chances that they'll evolve to resist them.
The TOE underlies all modern biology, and all medicine.
30 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe reptiles into which birds evolve did have hollow bones, yes. Early birds didn't so much fly as glide. If you feel that you can get a horse to glide I'd love to see it.
Are you saying that proto-birds had all these characteristics (hollow bones, one-way respiratory systems etc.)? If not, then our proto-Pegasus doesn't need them either. The finished Pegasus will need analogous systems, no doubt, but the initial version doesn't. Gradualism can take over from that point.