Why has a bee's sting evolved to be barbed?

Originally posted by amannion
Let me firstly say, I'm not an evolutionary biologist - just a science teacher - so my knowledge of evolution is not as an expert.
However, I would characterise any scientific theory or model as simply the best natural explanation available to explain something. If and when a better theory or model appears, then that one takes the place of the older one. ( it is our current best theory or model - our current best [b]natural theory or model.[/b]

Natural explaination sort of boxes in your views on how it could be
done, and you assume a great deal in these explainations! One that
they could 'naturally occur' when that is the full debate, can they to
the level that people believe? If all you are doing is stating a belief
be honest about that and quit suggesting it is something other than
a belief. I know it will leave a bad taste in your mouth since now you
have just made your beliefs about life a matter of faith like religions
beliefs in God, but there you go.

You are forced with these 'natural' models to stop in mid process
and just say at some points this is the beginning but we don't know
how it began.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
If you can demonstrate that a particular organism or a particular feature of an organism did not evolve, that would disprove the theory.
This is essentially the notion behind the falsifiability concept.
Not that it is wrong, but that it can be proven wrong if the right evidence is found.
This can not be said of fairies, ghosts or gods - these phenomena are not falsifiable. I can not prove them wrong.

"If you can demonstrate that a particular organism or a particular feature of an organism did not evolve, that would disprove the theory. "

How can that be done!? All you have to do is come up with a story on
how it could have happened and there you go?
Kelly

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so by your argument, there is no intelligent thought behind the building of a hummer because it could be better. because it is not perfect. because if you are intelligent you are required to only build perfect things.

suppose someone wants an axe to chop wood. you make such an axe. then someone comes and calls you stupid for building an axe that dents if ...[text shortened]... im!- and believes that intelligent design is crap science. don't get me started on creationism)

"so by your argument, there is no intelligent thought behind the building of a hummer because it could be better. because it is not perfect. because if you are intelligent you are required to only build perfect things. "

No matter how good it is, that claim can always be made, you could
have xray vision and there would still be ways to improve. It is a
argument that requires no proof.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural explaination sort of boxes in your views on how it could be
done, and you assume a great deal in these explainations! One that
they could 'naturally occur' when that is the full debate, can they to
the level that people believe? If all you are doing is stating a belief
be honest about that and quit suggesting it is something other than
a belief ...[text shortened]...
and just say at some points this is the beginning but we don't know
how it began.
Kelly

Sort of boxes my views in?
That's bizarre - I'm interested in natural explanations, which as far as I'm concerned is all you can get. There's no boxing in of views - natural means everything.
I'm not interested in supernatural explanations. One, because they don't exist, two, because they allow the door open for any mumbo jumbo rubbish like gods, fairies, ghosts, werewolves and anything else you care to dream up, and three, because they don't exist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"If you can demonstrate that a particular organism or a particular feature of an organism did not evolve, that would disprove the theory. "

How can that be done!? All you have to do is come up with a story on
how it could have happened and there you go?
Kelly

Exactly.
Good luck with disproving it.
Oh wait, I forgot, god did it.

Originally posted by amannion
Exactly.
Good luck with disproving it.
Oh wait, I forgot, god did it.

At least you admit it.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
Sort of boxes my views in?
That's bizarre - I'm interested in natural explanations, which as far as I'm concerned is all you can get. There's no boxing in of views - natural means everything.
I'm not interested in supernatural explanations. One, because they don't exist, two, because they allow the door open for any mumbo jumbo rubbish like gods, fairies, ...[text shortened]... , werewolves and anything else you care to dream up, and three, because they don't exist.

So where did everything come from?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So where did everything come from?
Kelly

I have absolutely no idea.
But, I'm certain that whatever happened will require no supernatural explanation.
A number of plausible beginnings to explanations have been developed in recent years - by Martin Rees and Paul Davies for example - which demonstrate that while we don't have an answer, and may never have one, we can at least start to make sense of the question in a 'natural' scientific way.

Originally posted by KellyJay
At least you admit it.
Kelly

Admit what?
That evolution is a very powerful and highly successful explanatory model?
Or that 'god did it' is your only possible response against it?

Originally posted by amannion
Admit what?
That evolution is a very powerful and highly successful explanatory model?
Or that 'god did it' is your only possible response against it?

You just admitted it doesn't matter what evolutionary story is used if
it gets debunked all it takes is another story to take its place so the
belief goes on! Seem straight forward to me, it is highly successful
and it cannot be shown to be wrong, because all it takes is a new
twist to continue it if it gets shown to be wrong at any point.
Kelly

Originally posted by amannion
I have absolutely no idea.
But, I'm certain that whatever happened will require no supernatural explanation.
A number of plausible beginnings to explanations have been developed in recent years - by Martin Rees and Paul Davies for example - which demonstrate that while we don't have an answer, and may never have one, we can at least start to make sense of the question in a 'natural' scientific way.

Yea, that is a belief no doubt about that, welcome to the world of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, that is a belief no doubt about that, welcome to the world of faith.
Kelly

I've never denied that my view is a belief - but, a belief that has some pretty powerful evidence and application on its side.
Oh sure, you can quote plagues of locusts, and turning back seas, and global floods, but c'mon, that's from a 2000 year old book. What have you got to back up your faith?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You just admitted it doesn't matter what evolutionary story is used if
it gets debunked all it takes is another story to take its place so the
belief goes on! Seem straight forward to me, it is highly successful
and it cannot be shown to be wrong, because all it takes is a new
twist to continue it if it gets shown to be wrong at any point.
Kelly

Of course it matters what story is used. It has to make sense within the framework of evolutionary theory.
I couldn't claim that eyes suddenly became ears - there's no justification to that.
But, you are right about the success of it. It can be twisted and reworked precisely because it is a successful explanatory theory.
Give me a better one ...

Originally posted by KellyJay
You just admitted it doesn't matter what evolutionary story is used if
it gets debunked all it takes is another story to take its place so the
belief goes on! Seem straight forward to me, it is highly successful
and it cannot be shown to be wrong, because all it takes is a new
twist to continue it if it gets shown to be wrong at any point.
Kelly

yes, you seem to not understand how science works. a theory might get replaced with a better theory once we reach more knowledge and better understanding. that is called progress. by your argument we should all kick science in the nuts because we are unable to get it right on the first try.

evolution is better than creationism because it was developed through reasoning and observation. nobody observed god, we just claim he created, simple as that. but by this reasoning, what right do you have to claim god is the one responsible and not Vishnu? or buddha? or the flying spaghetti monster?

religion and science do not ever go together. and with just reason: they deal with completely different issues. i believe in god, and i say that behind everything, there he is. but as Leibniz(i think) said, god is not needed in scientific theories.

Originally posted by amannion
I've never denied that my view is a belief - but, a belief that has some pretty powerful evidence and application on its side.
Oh sure, you can quote plagues of locusts, and turning back seas, and global floods, but c'mon, that's from a 2000 year old book. What have you got to back up your faith?

I don't see very powerful evidence at all when it comes to life moving
through evolution from its supposedly most basic form to the complex
varitey we see today. The history of the world, our race, its current
state, the changes in my life and the lives of millions, life, the balance
of the universe all seem like good evidence for me too for God.
Kelly