My research on DNA has been very interesting. I am rather pleased to learn that evolution as understood by most is seen as a faith rather than a science. People who understand DNA side slightly more with the evolutionists. However this seems to be because they like them more as they will listen if the DNA proves something they don't like. The debate of the moment seems to be the complexity and robust nature of DNA. Very big numbers that at first seem to favour something much more complex than the Evolution theory. The big debate is amimals that refuse to change over a great period of time. This might have a very simple reason. Perhaps some DNA structures are super ridged. Junk DNA seems to be a mistaken concept. This link I hope is good enough and avoids getting a PHD to go further.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome | Science | The Guardian
Creationists seem as happy to talk about DNA. They are delighted that it seems to cast doubt on evolution as taught. This is where I came in to this and saw it as Flat Earth Science. From what I slightly understand the science of DNA will surprise everyone. If it is valid to say imformation exists in DNA that couldn't come from nowhere I can not say. Some do and they don't infer anything except to respect ideas from Quantum physics. Again a non PHD link.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-physicists-come-to-the-conclusion-that-information-cannot-be-destroyed
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome | Science | The Guardian
Creationists seem as happy to talk about DNA. They are delighted that it seems to cast doubt on evolution as taught. This is where I came in to this and saw it as Flat Earth Science. From what I slightly understand the science of DNA will surprise everyone. If it is valid to say imformation exists in DNA that couldn't come from nowhere I can not say. Some do and they don't infer anything except to respect ideas from Quantum physics. Again a non PHD link.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-physicists-come-to-the-conclusion-that-information-cannot-be-destroyed
This is what I saw. I was totally fooled that evolution is a science. However I totally respect the evidence looked conclusive. My bigger surprise was how often both sides cheat. I wouldn't like to say who is worse when that. With DNA it is very like a combination lock and cheating gets you nowhere. They who know will say if anyone cheats. It will be so interesting to see where it goes.
What I was trying to say was that things that we take to be fact today can be less so a few years later. Some then forget they championed the wrong view.
What I was trying to say was that things that we take to be fact today can be less so a few years later. Some then forget they championed the wrong view.
Science is a process, not an amalgamation of knowledge. The process is designed to test explanations for physical phenomena and the result either rejects or does not reject a particular explanation at a particular point in time. Despite successful tests over hundreds of years no result is sacrosanct and new observations can and do overturn accepted knowledge. Sometimes as when Einstein superseded Newton the old knowledge remains intact and fully useful except in the limited circumstances where the new knowledge supersedes, as when velocities are a significant fraction of C. In other cases the new fully replaces the old.
Evolution as an explanation of the past is not rigorously testable as no one gathered the data while it played out. Evolution going forward as in the case of the development of antibiotic resistant diseases is quite robust. That the theory was developed long before the molecular basis for evolution (DNA) was discovered seems to me to buttress it as a foundation for correctly explaining the unfolding of life here. Whether or not there was a Designer behind the process is not scientifically testable.
Evolution as an explanation of the past is not rigorously testable as no one gathered the data while it played out. Evolution going forward as in the case of the development of antibiotic resistant diseases is quite robust. That the theory was developed long before the molecular basis for evolution (DNA) was discovered seems to me to buttress it as a foundation for correctly explaining the unfolding of life here. Whether or not there was a Designer behind the process is not scientifically testable.
Not wanting to split hairs, but evolution is not a science. It is an observable process. It is not a theory that can be overturned by new observations.
What science has got us is a theory that explains how that process, the process of evolution, runs, namely through natural selection. That theory can be modified by new observations.
Jan
A scientific theory is an explanation of facts and observations. It is not a fact. As more facts and evidence corroborates a scientific theory, it becomes more robust.
Some scientific theories are so useful and obvious that they are for all practical purposes facts. But they're not really facts because evidence could still falsify them. For example if a mass travelled through our solar system without "obeying" Kepler's laws of planetary motion (conservation of angular momentum), then the theory of gravity would be subject to scrutiny. If this observed phenomenon could not be explained, then the theory of gravity would be weakened. It is physicist's attempts to explain such phenomena that lead to new discoveries.
Einstein's theory of relativity, like any new scientific theory, raised many questions. It made many predictions (like red shift of radiation from the big bang) that were corroborated. This makes relativity a more robust scientific theory. As technology advanced, scientists were able to see more and conduct more tests. They find things that seem to contradict relativity and spawn more research. This methodical method of inquiry leads to many new discoveries, and many new questions. But it always makes relativity a stronger theory until that discovery leads us to an answer (not a question!) that contradicts relativity. It hasn't happened and it probably won't; but the possibility is always there.
Let me point out that if we abandoned relativity at the first hint of contradiction then we'd still be in the dark on so many topics. We would be lacking a whole lot of technology that we all take for granted today.
And evolution is the same. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution to the scientific world it was based on empirical observations and sound logic. We knew so little about biology and genomics (there was no clue or hint of DNA back then) that we had no idea what we didn't know. 150 years of scientific inquiry has strengthened the theory of evolution with every discovery. Modern genomic sequencing techniques (a robust technology) is the icing on the cake, because now common descent is a virtual certainty.
It is hard to imagine what kind of evidence would falsify evolution, but as long as it is a falsifiable theory (ALL scientific theories must be falsifiable or else they can't even be studied) there is a chance that it will be falsified.
Some scientific theories are so useful and obvious that they are for all practical purposes facts. But they're not really facts because evidence could still falsify them. For example if a mass travelled through our solar system without "obeying" Kepler's laws of planetary motion (conservation of angular momentum), then the theory of gravity would be subject to scrutiny. If this observed phenomenon could not be explained, then the theory of gravity would be weakened. It is physicist's attempts to explain such phenomena that lead to new discoveries.
Einstein's theory of relativity, like any new scientific theory, raised many questions. It made many predictions (like red shift of radiation from the big bang) that were corroborated. This makes relativity a more robust scientific theory. As technology advanced, scientists were able to see more and conduct more tests. They find things that seem to contradict relativity and spawn more research. This methodical method of inquiry leads to many new discoveries, and many new questions. But it always makes relativity a stronger theory until that discovery leads us to an answer (not a question!) that contradicts relativity. It hasn't happened and it probably won't; but the possibility is always there.
Let me point out that if we abandoned relativity at the first hint of contradiction then we'd still be in the dark on so many topics. We would be lacking a whole lot of technology that we all take for granted today.
And evolution is the same. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution to the scientific world it was based on empirical observations and sound logic. We knew so little about biology and genomics (there was no clue or hint of DNA back then) that we had no idea what we didn't know. 150 years of scientific inquiry has strengthened the theory of evolution with every discovery. Modern genomic sequencing techniques (a robust technology) is the icing on the cake, because now common descent is a virtual certainty.
It is hard to imagine what kind of evidence would falsify evolution, but as long as it is a falsifiable theory (ALL scientific theories must be falsifiable or else they can't even be studied) there is a chance that it will be falsified.
100% agree.
Maybe also note that what gave Darwin's theory a good head start is that it in one fell swoop pulled together all kinds of different ideas to try to explain the wildly varying observations of development of the many different species of plants and animals. The theory of evolution by natural selection bound it all together, and that was hard to ignore. It was a really unifying theory.
Darwin himself wrote in the preface of the 6th ed. of On the Origin of Species in 1872 that most 'naturalists' now agreed to the principle of evolution, which was certainly not the case in the first years after its initial publication in 1859.
Jan
Maybe also note that what gave Darwin's theory a good head start is that it in one fell swoop pulled together all kinds of different ideas to try to explain the wildly varying observations of development of the many different species of plants and animals. The theory of evolution by natural selection bound it all together, and that was hard to ignore. It was a really unifying theory.
Darwin himself wrote in the preface of the 6th ed. of On the Origin of Species in 1872 that most 'naturalists' now agreed to the principle of evolution, which was certainly not the case in the first years after its initial publication in 1859.
Jan
Wikipedia is 1-2 orders of magnitude more accurate (not to mention constantly up to date) than your old Encyclopedia Brittanica types. Sorry. It's not a be-all-end-all, bu the quality of curation and their aggressiveness to cull anything remotely crank-science makes it an excellent starting point for legitimate research.
Indeed it was a unifying theory. It provided a practical framework to judge and interpret discoveries and hypotheses.
You realize that there were competing theories like Lamarckism, correct? Now think about all we've learned, all the technologies we've developed because of evolution.
Now, imagine if Lamarckism has been the framework for inquiry and discovery all along. See what I mean?
For that matter, imagine where we'd be if we didn't have relativity. The world would be a whole lot different, don't you think?
None of these explanations/theories change the underlying phenomena, though, and theories are outmoded all the time. If we didn't have relativity, the universe (as we experience it) would be a VERY DIFFERENT PLACE. Surely you're not trying to suggest that the universe is somehow subordinate to how we describe it?
Interestingly, there are some indications that Lamarckism, in some form, very limited, might also be in effect.
Even the area of bacteria and antibiotics causes debate. Here is an extract which I take to be ture. True or not it is a valid question. The whole text makes it clearer and to me has a bias. None the less very interesting as it is vital we understant where to go next with antibiotics. DNA seems to be their new book of wisdom.
"Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development."
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
"Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development."
Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics? | The Institute for Creation Research
The organisms from which penicillin was developed could have existed back then so the bacteria in question could have come across them. Remember, we did not invent penicillin - we discovered it.
However, the usual story is that evolution require some selection pressure which would only have come from significant use of penicillin. More likely, in my view, that the bacteria had penicillin resistance stored away in their library (in the 'junk' DNA) so could express it when necessary. When penicillin use reduces they will lose their resistance again. Maybe we should do the antibiotic equivalent of crop rotation?
What would be more interesting is if ancient bacteria were found with resistance to a modern synthetic antibiotic.
However, the usual story is that evolution require some selection pressure which would only have come from significant use of penicillin. More likely, in my view, that the bacteria had penicillin resistance stored away in their library (in the 'junk' DNA) so could express it when necessary. When penicillin use reduces they will lose their resistance again. Maybe we should do the antibiotic equivalent of crop rotation?
What would be more interesting is if ancient bacteria were found with resistance to a modern synthetic antibiotic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.