"One cannot ask whether a theory reflects reality, just whether it agrees with observations."
-Professor Stephen Hawking
That was from an interview with Professor Hawking broadcast by the BBC on Thursday (hear the whole thing as an mp3 download
here, it's fascinating). He was talking about the prospect of other dimensions, not really relevant here
(
Read more... )
The first two examples are testing microevolution or adaptation and the second two are not testing anything, just making observations. So no, Evolution (or properly, the Theory of Evolution) cannot be tested, in the same way that the Theory of Creation cannot be tested.
Reply
Many of these tests have shown genetic change in populations of species, and change enough to consider the descendant population a separate species. What percentage of genetic change would you require for something to be considered "macro" rather than "micro"? Since speciation has been observed, is a change in species not enough? Would you demand a change in genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom? What degree of change would cross your "macro"-threshold?
Reply
Reply
Change in multiple features of a creature, or significant change in a single feature (over time) would be required to show that macro-evolution is a possibility.
Change in multiple features has been observed. "Significant" change in a single feature is still undefined. What would you consider significant, and why? Like I said, what percentage of genetic change would be acceptable?
Reply
Example?
What would you consider significant, and why?
It's difficult for me to express as I'm not a biologist, but the point is that the feature(s) of the animal needs to change more than just cosmetically. For example, can you describe what is really different between a horse and a donkey? They can't interbreed but they can produce offspring (a mule) when manipulated by humans. We have them classified as different species, but what are the differences?
Reply
Horses and donkeys can produce mules or hinnies, but these offspring are almost always infertile. The offspring should be fertile for the parents to be considered the same species. I think ligers/tigons have the same infertility problem. Mules/hinnies and ligers/tigons are hybrids, not species of themselves.
It's difficult for me to express as I'm not a biologist, but the point is that the feature(s) of the animal needs to change more than just cosmetically.You mean genetically? I'm not a biologist, either, but it seems kind of unreasonable for someone who admittedly isn't well versed in the field to criticize the conclusions of agreed experts ( ... )
Reply
It's not that extreme, but it needs to be more than than just changing color or a different ear length. For example, look at all the varieties of dog. They are all still dogs. All of those variations are cosmetic, none of them change defining features.
Reply
Reply
And that's just the first hurdle. Beyond that, you have the logical leap to say that more complex features can change or be created over a longer period of time.
Reply
Can you explain what you mean by "more complex features"?
Reply
A simple feature is something like coloration or ear size or leg length whereas a complex feature would be like eye structure or a new organ (or a missing organ).
Reply
I understand what you mean, but what makes a feature "complex" rather than "simple"?
Reply
Well, I did, you just want it to be more exact than what's being criticised, even though I said I'm not in that field. I don't have the knowledge to make an alternate suggestion, although I do have enough to know that what's proposed currently isn't good enough.
I understand what you mean, but what makes a feature "complex" rather than "simple"?
I don't know how else to put it, other than it's obvious. I'm sure you can ask a biologist what are simple features and what are complex ones.
Reply
Yes, in fact, they can. Biologists believe that ALL THE FEATURES MENTIONED ABOVE ARE COMPLEX.
So are you now saying that because all the things mentioned above are complex, you believe that there is demonstrative evidence of evolution and you accept the theory?
Reply
Reply
Ear size and shape is hugely complex; it dictates what frequencies can be heard, at what volume, and at what distance and relative position from the hearer. That's why dogs, humans, and bats all hear very differently.
Reply
Leave a comment