Originally posted by uzlessIts equally true that scientists question their own work and that of their collegues as to whether they adhere to the highest priciples of science. That is whether or not they show rigour in constantly questioning their assumptions and conclusions and whether or not they are not simply willing to rest on the traditions of science that amply abound.
Only in a religion dominated society like the US can you have a debate about whether or not science is science.🙄
Just because a scientist engages in a complex study, does not guarantee that good science results.
Talking about science, I'd like to quote words by Sir Karl Popper here.
"Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification."
Testing hypothesis by using suitable methodologies to find answers to questions. Science can be beautifully done just to prove almost negligible tiny bits of facts in our lives. However still that bits make contributions to our knowledges.
Just PEOPLE are good at utilising/applying whatever apparent truths or reasonings, to support their own ideas by twisting and bending conveniently.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat is this 'evolution' you speak of and where did my rock go?
Usually, scientific theories are being discussed in the realm of the sciences .......... but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents. An ideology, not just capable of explaining how species ...[text shortened]... ientific theory or has it become a new ideology, a new "way of thinking" ?
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganOf course, whilst you are right, I feel you may simply have misunderstood me. You are right on the level of the individual bacterium. However, for a population or entire species of bacteria (plural) it is entirely correct to say that their genetic code changed in response to a selection pressure.
I fear it is risky to say that genetic code changes in response to selective pressure as you suggest. I understood that random mutations arise periodically, (hence in response to nothing whatever) some of which enhance and others hinder the ability to survive and reproduce. What is key here is not that change happens but that some random change survives to the same conclusions based on similar evidence which surrounds us when we know how to look.
Evolution, as I'm sure you know, is an algorithmic process, contingent upon many things. One is, of course, mutation, which is itself a non-random process (some parts of the genome mutate faster than others, some are more conserved). The other main one is selection pressure. In the absence of selective pressure evolution "runs at full speed" (i.e. mutations are not selected against). However, a selective pressure can lead to the mean genetic profile of a species changing through time, even if it has no affect on producing that change.
Think of it this way. Get a sample of wheat grains and a 5mm sieve. Sieve the grains and discard those which remain. The mean size of the population of seeds which fell through the sieve, and which remain, is smaller than the original sample mean, but the sieve itself had no effect on controlling grain size. It did have an effect on the resultant population.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI enjoyed your post and your examples. I see I have to be more precise (thanks). I have no doubt some parts of the genome do mutate faster than others so there is a sense in which it is not random where the change might take place, but even so I suggest that in the context that matters to me, their mutations take place not IN ORDER TO or for a purpose, but BECAUSE OF, and the because relates to events or (as you point out) physical characteristics. In terms of natural selection they are random because there is no way of predicting which changes will become a basis for selection - there is no question of design or purpose or intention or wisdom. They just happen. Mostly they are either not relevant (and might hang around for generations) or they are selected against and disappear. As to which will become relevant, potentially many generations in the future, the environmental reason for this would be quite unpredictable and the gene has no means of making predictions.
[b]Of course, whilst you are right, I feel you may simply have misunderstood me. You are right on the level of the individual bacterium. However, for a population or entire species of bacteria (plural) it is entirely correct to say that their genetic code changed in response to a selection pressure.
One is, of course, mutation, which is itself a non-r ...[text shortened]... netic profile of a species changing through time, even if it has no affect on producing that change.
I object at times (not always since it is a convenient form of shorthand provided it is done within the population of those who appreciate the science) to the way genes are imputed with intentions and purposes. It is correct to say gene code changes IN RESPONSE to selective pressure, but not to imply that this was intended.
Why argue since our difference is so fine? Simple.
In response to Intelligent Design we argue that the diversity of species arises through a set of arbitrary, random and unthinking events. There is no designer. However, what the theory of evolution achieves is to show that such events can in fact generate all of the countless and amazingly rich phenomena that we observe with wonder and awe. This is because the most random events are constrained by intelligible and necessary consequences, which we can discover through the scientific method. So there is another sense in which nothing is truly random - everything is constrained by laws that we can discover. but the laws are inherent in the properties of nature, not external in the sense of Plato's Forms.
Far better I think to admire Nature as it actually is than to restrict my imagination to the contents of an aged and rather dour religious tome of uncertain authority and declining relevance. The planet Earth will not stand still in the immensity of space and time on the directions of any religious authority.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganI agree (95% ). 😉
I enjoyed your post and your examples. I see I have to be more precise (thanks). I have no doubt some parts of the genome do mutate faster than others so there is a sense in which it is not random where the change might take place, but even so I suggest that in the context that matters to me, their mutations take place not IN ORDER TO or for a purpose, but ot stand still in the immensity of space and time on the directions of any religious authority.
I would say that if we know the predominant selection pressure then we should be able to predict traits which will evolve before they do. For example, MRSA remains only vulnerable to a couple of antibiotics. Although normally this might be a relatively obscure fact in its own right, apparently there is recently a more virulent strain. My feeling is that these two things combined will lead to MRSA becoming immune to at least one more of the remaining antibiotics.
I enjoy having you on board in these discussions mate, welcome to the mad-house.