Discussions
is evolution a repeatable science?
Posted by gfish3000 • 1/06/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: creationism, Evolution, experiments, intelligent design, labs, science
Fervent creationists like to contend that evolution isn't repeatable science despite the fact that most of what we know about the mechanics of evolution today came from science labs and studies of genetics and embryo development. It's as if they forgot that after The Origin of the Species, there was over a century of scientific research into the theory and dozens of important new discoveries.
I wrote a post about it on my popular science blog, showing what experiments can prove or disprove key aspects of evolution:
worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/05/is-evolution-a-repeatable-science/
... and now I want to know what you think. And what about creationism? Is is a repeatable science? How do we prove that there's a designer and he actually designs creatures on a regular basis? How does he do it and can we replicate that in a lab? No reason for double standards here.
User Comments
-
can you make something out of nothing?-
And that has what to do with living things changing form?
-
-
Perhaps, if you can wait a few billion years, just like the 'current' evolution. Besides, evolution is for a large part based on coincidence and randomness, how repeatable is that?-
Actually cumulative effects of evolution can be seen in just a few hundred years and you can test its mechanisms in a lab. It's all in the link.
-
-
And what about creationism? Is is a repeatable science?
Creation means to create something, science manipulates what is already in existance.
Are scientists designers? can they create ex-nihilo a brand new species? and can they keep on designing new creatures on a regular basis?-
With enough money, sure. We already know how to replicate living things from scratch.
blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/2008/02/should-scientis.html
What holds us back is a) money and b) consequences of errors.
-
-
Science is about a methodology instead of a fact -
Creationism isn't repeatable science. It's philosophy inspired by Abrahamists. Some might even argue that popular creationism doesn't even fit biblical models either. Evolution, while a matter of interpretation of comparative phenomena and observation of natural selection won't be repeatable a science until we get a full handle on genetics. That doesn't seem to be far away and will probably be more a thing for transhumanists than for most of us. -
Actually evolution is repeatable, we have lots of documented evidence of this. All you need to do is look at sixty years worth of epidemiology research to know simple organisms not only evolve but can be stimulated into doing it in predictable ways.
Where most people, creationists and those lay people that claim to believe in evolution, get evolution wrong is there is not a single evolutionary theory. There are literally thousands of evolutionary theories. Darwin might have been the first and therefore the most important evolutionary theorist, but he is by no means the only one even if his name is the only one ever mentioned by both sides of the debate. -
@gfish3000
Nice link, but not actually clear if they managed to achieve the replication of a bacterium, seemed a bit premature as they hadn’t actually created this life form yet.
Any updates? After all it’s nearly a year ago now.
Alas, it appears it is still a replication of an existent life form not a brand new species designed by science.-
Yes, but again, if you read the article closely, the same technology can create a brand new species of bacteria however there are way too many anxieties and not enough cash to do it.
-
-
-
@bradhart
Actually evolution is repeatable, we have lots of documented evidence of this. All you need to do is look at sixty years worth of epidemiology research to know simple organisms not only evolve but can be stimulated into doing it in predictable ways.
Is this really evolution or is it more of a description of mutation?-
Evolution in its broadest definition is nothing more than a species wide mutation. The causes of it are many and varied, but in the end the results are the same over time.
-
-
you don't create a brand new species all at once through evolution. It is generational, even through the direct genetic manipulation we have access to now. You alter one thing at a time with many generations in between. In nature we are talking hundreds or thousands and more generations for a single gene to mutate and permeate through out a species. it takes hundred and thousands of these genes to become a new species in higher life forms. There simply isn't a big codon writer we can input all the genetic information in to output us a brand new species all at once.
-
I wouldn't call it "repeatable science" either. Intelligent design (Or Creationist to use your word) theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!
Another thing to consider ... All of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.
Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings? We have to depend on others to do the research and testing for us, and we have to trust them to give us the truth. The same goes for religion. Unless you're an expert in your field, or your personal deity has come down to talk with you, it's an extension of faith. How does that make evolution any different to ID?
Edit: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
Furthermore, the claim that the natural world can be explained as the result of only natural causes is not scientific. The idea that the natural world has no supernatural causes lies outside of science. It is metaphysical and cannot be verified by science.-
"The idea that the natural world has no supernatural causes lies outside of science."
Actually that is science. If we could prove the existence of God, the deity would be cataloged as a natural event because it exists in nature. We are all part of nature. Humans, animals, aliens and deities.
As for your example of "intelligent design" in SETI, archeology or anthropology those are example of searching for clearly artificial things done by known tools and means. A rock carving is very different than a normal rock and we can find the tools used to do it. Signals from another world are made by broadcasting equipment we can build here. When we find a lab in the sky to manufacture living things, then get back to me. -
Meh. There are innate problems with the idea that information had to be designed or that specified complexity denotes a designer.
Furthermore, you can in some cases enhance a signal by adding noise to the system. This means you make your signal more random, yet it becomes stronger. Try this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_white_gaussian_noise
Intelligent design is backwards reasoning. That is, they make the conclusions first and then try to fill in the inferences and premises.
-
-
And what about creationism? Is it a repeatable science?
Creationism is not science. It doesn't even fit the model of a scientific hypothesis because it does not make falsifiable claims. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is scientifically just as invalid as any other Creationist myth.
Is evolution a repeatable science?
If it weren't, you wouldn't need to get new flu shots every year.
Scientists and laymen actually make new species of plants, animals and bacteria virtually on a daily basis.
Where do you think rose cultivars named after celebrities originate? Do they:
A) pray really hard until a new cultivar is magically created with mojo?
B) follow the principles of evolution to create a new species of rose?
If you answered B, you now know that evolution is a repeatable science.
What about new horse breeds? The Lipizzaner horse was bred by humans following the principles of evolution. There you go: evolution is a repeatable science.
What about evolution between different species? Well, wolves and dogs are clearly different species. Dogs were bred from wolves. Again, evolution is a repeatable science. OK, so they're a little similar. What about cats and dogs? They're both thought to share a common ancestor.
What's that? You're saying that it's merely shifting qualities that were already in existence around between different kinds of animals who may or may not have been created?
OK, fine. Here's a bacterium that eats through nylon. Nylon is a synthetic material. Before the 1940s, bacteria could not eat through nylon. This means that bacteria evolved the ability to eat through nylon. No Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other kind of imaginary deity could've done this, because nylon is an artificial material.
www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Case closed. -
Darwins Theory is supported by science because no other theory has anything like the scientific support behind it.
From a religious point of view The Pope supports Darwin's theory and he has thought about this kind of stuff rather more than I have so that is good enough for me.
Look if you are sick to you go to a Doctor or to the church. Of course you go to the doctor because science has the answers to why you are unwell.
So if you want to understand the origins of species why go to the church when science has the answers.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
