Changing the definition of science in Kansas - Page 3  

But that isn't the prediction or hypothesis. The prediction and hypothesis is about new species coming into existence, having evolved (through the process described) from other species. No one denies that there are identifiable and observable "relationships" (i.e., similarities in form and genetic structure) among species. But the idea of one species coming into existence, through the process described, is the central "thing". How is that testable?

Has anyone here ever taken the time to read Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson

edit: no referrer links please. anyone who wishes to see an overview of the book and the comments that come with it can check amazon.com - rageous

I have Behe's book...in a stack...about 2 feet high...I am behind on my reading. \

Haven't heard of the other Johnson book. Have heard of Dembski's.

I've made a promise to not buy any more books until my current pile is (at least slightly) shorter.

I have found that I need to take Amazon reviews with at least a small grain of salt. First, they aren't really vetted in anyway. Second, I have found extremely negative reviews on books I found to be great, and vice-versa. Finally, with any book on a controversial topic you will find both ends of the spectrum in a basically public forum (no really?) So I tend to read and try to form my own opinion.

But this is "the thing". It is about the "origin of species". That is the debate. That is the issue. That is the controversy.


No it isn't. Because there are two camps that claim different ways that the species have come about. That is the debate. That is the issue. That is the controversy.


Not it does not. By its very nature the fossil record cannot show this as all it shows are static "pictures" of points in time (many of which are missing BTW). Speciation is a process.


Wasn't it National Geographic that (recently) compares the fossil record in general to a film with 999 out of every 1,000 frames missing.

So..."continuously recording, 24 frames-per-second, 10-million-view-angle movie"...no...but something more that 1/10 of 1% might be useful though.


It is observation.

Testing would be to stick a bunch of some thing into a room...try to apply some number of random mutations...accelerate the process to accomodate for the fact the we don't have a billion years or whatever...and see if mutations descend, accumulate and result in the emergence of a new biologically reproductively isolated sub-population (new species).

Doesn't seem so hard to me.

P.S. And don't give me the fruit flies...but this hasn't proven what so many lay-scientists think it has. Or the "ring species"...same story there.

I am so tired of the simple-minded use of "gravity" as some kind of example of a theory "just like evolution". I can see gravity at work every single day.

You are missing the point entirely and arguing dishonestly.

The existence of species is a fact...it is a piece of data. How they came about it the theory. This is the point of contention. Evolution theory says that it happened by a certain process. Looking to the past, there is no way to prove this (absent a time machine). The hypothesis can be tested as I suggested.


And, in fact, no theory about the past can be proven.


Yes. No.


Well...if that was the level of fossil incompleteness, then perhaps this analogy might be actually applicable.


Yes. This is true. But observation alone does not constitute a test/experiment.

Nope.

Let's ask a simpler question (two actually).

1. Can the hypothesis of speciation be shown to be false?

2. If yes, what would show the hypothesis to be false?

Quit assuming.


No I didn't. I only said that's what the hypothesis says.


Whatever.

What data? What observation, if made, would demonstrate the hypothesis of speciation to be false?

You have not answered the question. You first statement is simply a wordier version of your first attempt. This is a very simple question:

What observation, if made, would demonstrate the hypothesis of speciation to be false?

For example...would the existence of a species with no direct ancestor species (which are both biologically reproductively isolated) demonstrate that the hypothesis that one species can come into existence through mutation of and mutation transferrance from another species?

If not that, what specific observation (or data) could be made (or found) that would demonstrate the hypothesis of speciation to be false?

You cannot say that something is not testable and still say it is a "scientific theory" according to the current definition(s) of what a scientific theory/hypothesis is.





These have come from some of these links:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node6.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...sci_theory.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...entdesign.html
http://www3.uakron.edu/biology/evolu...fic_theory.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~dayvdanls/whatsscience.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/f...oscimethod.htm

(NOTE: Not all links expressly say it must be "testable" but strongly imply that it must be by nature of the scientific method.)

So, how can we construct and experiment to test the hypothesis of speciation? I suggested a fairly straightforward example earlier.


Actually...it is not merely "one expression of evolution". Speciation is critical. This is the point of contention.


Yes, these are some examples that, if shown, could demonstrate the hypothesis of speciation to be false. Thank you. There are others too...my previous post includes one.


This really wouldn't demonstrate the the hypothesis of speciation to be false. It would simply show that it didn't happen in that span of time.

The idea of speciation is pretty straightforward.

Looking backwards:

Over the course of time, all known species of plants and animals have emerged through a process of (natural and random) mutation, mutation transferrance to descendents and mutation accumulation, these accumulations eventually resulting in populations that are, biologically-speaking, both distinct and reproductively isolated.

Looking forward:

Species will continue to change through a process of (natural and random) mutation, mutation transferrance to descendents and mutation accumulation and new populations that are biologically both distinct and reproductively isolated from one another will emerge.

This can be shown to be false if a species existed that does not and never did have a direct ancestor from which it emerged through a process of (natural and random) mutation.

This can also be tested in at least one way by putting a population of some species into an isolated environment, apply lots of (random) mutations and see whether or not, through a process of (natural and random) mutation, mutation transferrance to descendents and mutation accumulation, new populations that are biologically both distinct and reproductively isolated from one another emerge.

---

NOTE: I have already provided an example (and you have provided a couple more) of how hypothesis of speciation could be shown to be false...making it falsifiable. I have also suggested an experiment that could be conducted, demonstrating that I think it is testable. So, let's discuss the experiments/tests. What I suggested is a seemingly straightforward one.

Finally. Whew. That wasn't so hard.



Except that you have a species that "just happened". How is that explained?

Remember, this is basically about "the origin of species"...how they all came about. The hypothesis of speciation claims to provide the answer. If it doesn't, are you saying that the hypothesis of speciation does not provide an explanation for how all species have come into existence?

What other definition can there possibly be?

These aren't my definitions. I didn't just make that up to setup "up a false roadblock". Look for yourself...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species

"A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding."

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/...S/species.html

"A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring."

Several others here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...define:species

I have (previously) agreed that variation within a species happens. This is quite obviously observable. Just because things look different doesn't mean they are different species in the sense that they cannot breed and produce offspring of a like (most likely "merged" kind).

But we have biologically reproductively isolated "things" (meaning they cannot produce offspring with one another).


Actually it would.

Lions? Tigers? Come on! According to the above definitions of "species" these are the same species, though obviously different morphological sub-groups within the species.

So evolution is not a theory about how species have come into existence?

Perhaps I am confused then.

This says something different:

"Although generally, evolution is taken to mean any process of change over time, in the context of life science, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species."

and

"In common parlance the word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern synthesis of evolution, including the theory that all extant species share a common ancestor."


What I take this to mean is that evolution is only about variation and change with in a species. Is that correct?

In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

A group of organisms capable of interbreeding freely with each other but not with members of other species.

A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms.

One or more populations of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms that are reproductively isolated in nature from all other organisms.

Species differ from one another in at least one characteristic, and generally do not interbreed.

A group of related organisms that are capable of breeding with each other to produce fertile offspring but are not capable of breeding with members of other species.

genetically distinctive group of natural populations that share a common gene pool that are reproductively isolated from all other such groups

in sexually reproducing organisms, a species is a group of genetically related organisms, usually similar in physical appearance, that actually or potentially interbreed and are reproductively isolated from other groups

It is further up in the thread.


"speciation" is really about "macro" evolution, not micro.


It is further up in the thread.