Re: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Hi Mike,

Interesting post, thanks for sharing. One question, though:

How would you distinguish this result from exaptation, or the possibility that the EST is coming off a related locus (perhaps a co-opted pseudogene)? I don't see this as clear-cut evidence for front loading - should I?

best,

dennis

On 21/07/09 7:03 PM, "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

Hi Dennis,

You wrote: "If you want to see a "science" that cannot make predictions, try ID. I have never seen any decent predictions made by that "theory". If anyone ever has, please point them out."

Well, it depends if you consider front-loading a version of "ID." If so, here is a recent prediction from the hypothesis of front-loading (that also links to a couple of previous predictions):
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/digging-up-more-buried-code-with-ribosomal-protein-s5/

Mike

----- Original Message -----

From: Dennis Venema <mailto:Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>

To: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> ; Dehler, Bernie <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>

Cc: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:10 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Moorad states:

"Actually, evolutionary theory is a "theory of everything" and as such really can never be falsified. There are no specific, unequivocal predictions that it makes for it to be logically be tested."

Well, find the proverbial rabbit in the Precambrian and evolution is falsified. For that matter, find some pollen in the Precambrian.

Some other predictions for you (just off the top of my head):

Examination of cetacean genomes will reveal pseudogenic remnants of genes adapted to terrestrial life.

Sequence comparisons of metatherian and eutherian genomes will reveal greater similarity within each group than across these groups, even for animals that superficially resemble each other due to convergent evolution (for example, marsupial and eutherian mouse-like animals).

Examination of the human genome will reveal pseudogenic remnants of genes adapted to prior manners of life (for example, genes used for egg yolk production).

Organisms predicted to be in the same phylogeny based on morphological criteria will also be more similar at the genetic level (both in terms of raw homology as well as synteny). This similarity will include mutations in pseudogenes, and repeated sequences such as LINEs and SINEs.

I could go on, but I think you see the point. Evolution is easily tested. To paraphrase the Princess Bride, "Genomics for creationists is pain, highness: anyone who says differently is selling something."

If you want to see a "science" that cannot make predictions, try ID. I have never seen any decent predictions made by that "theory". If anyone ever has, please point them out.

Dennis

On 21/07/09 1:38 PM, "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

Experimental science deals with data that can ultimately be generalized into laws of Nature, which afterwards can be deduced from a theory. Newton's theory of gravitation is the best example of how science was developed and works. Tyco Brahe collected data, Kepler summarized the data into three law of planetary motion and subsequently Newton proposed a theoretical (mathematical) model from whence Kepler's three laws followed directly from the mathematics of the model.
Actually, evolutionary theory is a "theory of everything" and as such really can never be falsified. There are no specific, unequivocal predictions that it makes for it to be logically be tested.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:17 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) (was: TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry)

Moorad said:
"However, if a new point occurs that does not fit the existing curve, then the curve can be modified quite successfully to fit that point."

I disagree. Further, I think YEC's would agree with your statement and do that all the time. Datapoints don't align for them, so they just say it is a mystery or miracle.

Moorad said:
"You cannot do that in; say a theory in physics, where future experimental results can falsify the theory that makes the wrong predictions."

My point and contribution is to say that your statement is wrong. There's not much difference in making a theory and trying to disprove it with scientific experiments or looking at historical data. In both cases, there is this common denominator: the hypothesis is made absent of facts, and facts are gathered to see if they can disprove the theory. If they disprove the theory, the theory is then modified and new data is collected (rinse and repeat). New data is new data- it doesn't matter if it comes from history (such as genomic studies of DNA).

This point is important because YEC-like mentality depends on false arguments like "no one was there to see it." They then think they can manipulate the interpretation of the data or ignore it because no one was there to see it.

Now of course some hypotheses are easier to confirm or deny, while others are much more complex. Evolution is so much more complex because of its overarching aspects and the time scale involved... billions of years (timescales beyond our natural comprehension- for us 200 years seems like a long time). Evolution is also more complex than others because of all the fields of study involved (cosmology, geology, biology, etc.).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:01 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Bernie,

The truth of the matter is that evolutionary theory is like connecting given points with a curve. One can make predictions as to the potential points that would fit that curve. However, if a new point occurs that does not fit the existing curve, then the curve can be modified quite successfully to fit that point. You cannot do that in; say a theory in physics, where future experimental results can falsify the theory that makes the wrong predictions.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 1:17 PM
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Moorad said:
"For one, we can make all sorts of predictions in our theory of gravitation and test them experimentally, witness Apollo 11, whereas the same cannot be said of evolution."

I think this is false. We can test evolutionary theory. A macroevolutionary hypothesis is that man descended from an apelike creature. Can it be disproven? Yes. Rather than running experiments, instead data is collected. Genomic studies. Data falls in line with evolutionary theory, and helps define/refine evolutionary theory. Data also disproves creation of human by fiat or any kind of sudden, non-descent (YEC/OEC idea of human creation).

In this way, evolutionary theory is scientific- only instead of running experimental tests (although there is much of this too, such as with fruit flies), it is more of collecting data to validate or disprove... such as genomic studies (just one example from biology).

So yes- many predictions are made in evolutionary theory as to what you should find when collecting data.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:58 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Bill Powers; Cameron Wybrow
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I agree that present evolutionary theory isn't on a par with general
relativity - if one remembers that Einstein's theory covers all the
successes of Newton's as well as departures from it. But I don't think this
invalidates my point about the need for theorizing about what makes
evolution work - if in fact it's happened, & I think it has.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>; "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>;
"Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Hi George,

From one theorist to another, I would never place the present understanding
of evolution on an equal footing with our understanding of gravitation. For
one, we can make all sorts of predictions in our theory of gravitation and
test them experimentally, witness Apollo 11, whereas the same cannot be said
of evolution.
I know that if I assume that the physical is all that there is, then
evolutions must be true. However, the converse is not true and therein lies
all the discussions and disagreements.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Bill Powers; Cameron Wybrow
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I want to comment just on the piece of Bill's post that I snip below.

Of course we can believe, & have strong evidence for believing, that
evolution has happened & is happening without knowing what makes it work.
In the same way, one can regard Newton's law of universal gravitation simply
as a well supported empirical rule with no attempt to understand why it's
true. That is what Newton meant when he said "I do not make hypotheses,"
not theorizing in general. He was not adverse to all hypotheses.

But scientists are not satisfied with such positions. Some may argue that
they should be but they generally aren't. They look for reasons why things
behave in one way & not another. & when we find that our empirical rules
run into probleems - when we realize that Newton's laws don't account
precisely for details of orbital mechanics or if we start wondering why the
coelecanth is still around - we're going to look for theories that will (a)
broaden our original empirical rules & (b) at the same time tell us why
those rules are approximately true.

(The coelecanth example is perhaps a poor one. The YEC notion that its
survival challenges evolution is of course nonsense. But it is natural to
wonder why some species survive for a long time & others don't. & one of
the deficiencies of merely saying "evolution happens" is that we have no way
of getting at such questions.)

Shalom
George - unapologetic theorist
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> Cameron:
...........................
> Now you come and say that Darwinian evolution is "weak" science. You
> never doubt, it seems, that evolution has taken place. You simply
> question the means.
>
> One needs to ask what is the significance of questioning the means. When
> Newton proposed his theory of gravity, he refused to posit an opinion as
> to how gravity acted, taking such an effort to be a remnant of
> Aristotleian physics. Most of the questions that the Aristotelians asked
> of him and other science are still unanswered and science has "progressed"
> nonetheless.
>
> Naively I ask, to what extent does evolutionary science depend upon the
> specific means of biological evolution? Chromosome fusion and the like
> appear equally consistent with chance, lawfulness, and intelligence.
...........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.=

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________________________

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.22/2253 - Release Date: 07/21/09 18:02:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:01 -0700