h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Xanatic

Only *fundamentalists* cannot integrate scientific knowledge in to their beliefs. Biblical scholars study the history of scripture, and they know that the ancient peoples of the time had no such concept of science. They passed on their information through myth and story. Like Genesis for example. Just because it is not true in a strictly scientific sense (how could it be?!) doesn't mean that it does not carry any truths. For example, the story of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a moral tale warning against the temptations of doing evil, and mans desire to do evil things.

Science is a different type of knowledge, and all knowledge is not scientific.

"The ones I've seen, do it by declaring God creating all animals in 6 days in the present form is a metaphor for Evolution."
It's a story that worked for the people of the time. It was never intended to literally describe creation

Does any religion have any problem with the theory of gravity? Quantum theory? Why would these be incompatible with their faith? In the same way, evolution is compatible.

Here's a good entry, one written by an Anglican Priest: A699573

Ste

Hey a miracle! no not a religous one!
My entry Islam and creation part 2 has been put back up.
How lonf for I do not know. Yipee.
Ahmmmmmm I mean great.
Adib

Hi dave,

I don't have much time here so I'll have to be brief.

I'm a scientist too, a biologist. Evolutionary theory can make predictions. The definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time", with time being measured in generations. An allele is a variant of a gene; the allelea for blue eyes and brown eyes are two alleles of the same gene.

There are computer models that can take into account the random variables of mutation and genetic drift with the non-random variable of natural selection (and gene flow) and make predictions of the frequency of allele X within Y number of generations with a population size of Z. It holds up to observable reality.

There also stuff like the Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium, which predicts the evolutionary behaviour of a "perfect" population to allow comparison. Do a google search, I'm sure there's stuff that can explain this better than I. Ah, I found a good link: http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/biology/class/hardy/ use the calcuator. Predict away!



Ste

I better have a look at the predictions. One of the problems I have with Evolution is also that I never felt it has made any predictions. But then again, history hasn't really either, and I guess it is a sort of biological history.

See, there they go and say it's a metaphor. What about how historically speaking Moses also seems to have been made up. And probably pretty much everything else of importance in the Bible. You don't feel that invalidates the religion just a little bit?

Muzaakboy, I was just using the 6 days from the Bible as an example. Even though you say otherwise, I'm sure you could find in the Quran something which goes against scientific knowledge of today. And then I think you have to choose, rather than start going on about metaphors.

I have never found some thing that contradicts modern science, many scientist them selfs have read the whole Quran and have adis they can not see no faulf in the Quran. Somw people havesuggested a perticuler verce contradicts another but this was proven to be false. For starters they used a english translation of the Quran which just showed there lack of understanding about translating from arguebly the hardist language to translate.

Adib

Ste -

that seems to be genetic prediction, not an evolution prediction. Evolution explains the formation and destruction of new species, but what specific predictions has it made that have been verified?

For example, general relativity predicts the idiosyncracies in the orbit of the planet mercury around the sun, and the bending of light as it passes near the sun.

What specific predictions has evolution made that have been verified?

I think Xanatic makes a good point about it being a biological history, and using this analogy, points out that history doesn't make predictions.

Dave

What sort of predictions would you expect evolution to make, given that the mutation process that drives it is essentially random?

Evolution is a metatheory that ties together results in other disciplines, from physics, through biochemistry, taxonomy, paleontology, genetics etc. It's success as a theory is measured less by it's ability to generate laboratory testable predictions as in its fruitfulness in suggesting new lines of research. Try reading Schrodinger's little book ("What is Life" I think; I'm sure Ste will know the exact title), which predicted the logical structure of genetics from the necessities of Darwin and Mendel.

As an aside to Xanatic; there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the core of the Moses story is correct and that the events may be linked to the eruption of Santorini and the collapse of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. (still controversial though.)

Noggin

"that seems to be genetic prediction, not an evolution prediction."

Think hard. What's the difference?

"Evolution explains the formation and destruction of new species"

No it doesn't. Even the *concept* of species is a slippery construct of our human need to draw lines where none exist.

Are lions and tigers separate species? Most people would say "yes". But what *makes* them different? They can interbreed. The only thing stopping them is the airfare, and let's face it, EasyJet are expanding all the time...

Evolution, as Ste said, explains the variation in allele frequency in a population over a number of generations. That's all it does, and that's all it NEEDS to do. People get hung up on "species" because it appeared in the title of the first important book - but please bear in mind that that book is OLD.

"What specific predictions has evolution made that have been verified?"

I'm hoping someone better versed in the biology can help me out here, because I think this is an important point. I'm sure Ste can oblige...

"history doesn't make predictions"

Of course history makes predictions! Cliches become cliches only by being TRUE, and one of my favourite cliches is "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

History makes predictions all the time - on what other basis does anyone ever invest money? Why else must there by law appear in every ad for financial services in the UK the phrase "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future growth"? The warning is necessary because people BELIEVE history can make predictions, and the reason they believe that is because most of the time, it can. If you want to be a reliable weather forecaster, just say "tomorrow's weather will be like today's", and more often than not, you'll be right. The days the weather actually changes are in the minority, so you'll be right most of the time.

Crikey, two beers and I do start going on, don't I?

H.

1st to noggin:
I can't really argue with what you're saying, because as I stated in my first post, I don't expect evolution to make predictions. I'm just pointing out that by evolution not making predictions, it's not on the same footing as other "good" scientific theories. As far as your other statement:

"Try reading Schrodinger's little book ("What is Life" I think; I'm sure Ste will know the exact title), which predicted the logical structure of genetics from the necessities of Darwin and Mendel"
Did this PREDICT the structure of genetics, or did explain them? The difference is critical in this case.

As an aside, which I should have said from the beginning, I "believe" that evolution is a good explanation, I'm not a creationist. I'm just playing devil's advocate, and trying to explain why creationists have a fighting chance.

Hoovooloo:

>>""that seems to be genetic prediction, not an evolution prediction."
>>Think hard. What's the difference?"
I think the difference is that genetics is talking about the chemical reactions of DNA (and other genetic materials). The predictions from that website are also based on statistical analysis of the recombinations of genes. As the web site even says, the theory as presented has nothing to do with selection of traits - no allele will ever be completely removed. By itself, how does this explain the extinction of a species?


>>"Evolution explains the formation and destruction of new species"
>>No it doesn't. Even the *concept* of species is a slippery
>>construct of our human need to draw lines where none exist.
Okay fine, so you're saying that statement is completely off base. Why don't you tell me one or two sentence description of evolution then?


>>"Are lions and tigers separate species? Most people would
>>say "yes". But what *makes* them different? They can interbreed.
>>The only thing stopping them is the airfare, and let's face it,
>>EasyJet are expanding all the time..."
Who cares what most people say? I'm interested in the technical classification. Are they actually classified as two separate species? According to what you've said, they aren't. Fine.


>>"Evolution, as Ste said, explains the variation in allele frequency
>>in a population over a number of generations. That's all it does,
>>and that's all it NEEDS to do. People get hung up on "species"
>>because it appeared in the title of the first important book - but
>>please bear in mind that that book is OLD."
Fine, throw out every use of the offensive word "species". What I'm saying is that the "variation in allele frequency..." is simple mathematics/genetics. You're claiming that's all evolution is. I thought evolution explained the history of the development of life. I don't see how *BY ITSELF* the above statement can carry out this explaination. Don't you need to have some allele's disappearing from the gene pool? In the simple frequency theories, how will the number ever reach zero, without external influences?


>>"What specific predictions has evolution made that have been
>>verified?"
>>I'm hoping someone better versed in the biology can help me out
>>here, because I think this is an important point. I'm sure Ste can
>>oblige...
I agree - and I'm still waiting...


>>""history doesn't make predictions"
>>Of course history makes predictions! ..."
Let me run something by you: History is a social science. Biology is a hard science. Are you seriously telling me that the predictions of social sciences are held to the same standards as hard sciences? Are you really telling me that you personally value the two equally? That, for example, your algorithm of weather prediction is as valuable as Newton's for gravity? Maybe you're saying that you're only holding evolution to the standards of a soft science - but if you are, then you've already lost the battle against creationism, because in the soft sciences it is routine to have multiple conflicting *explanations*. A teacher who didn't present multiple interpretations of the same event in the social sciences would surely be considered biased...


By the way, I need to read a good book on evolution. DNA liked Richard Dawkins (is that the right name?) I have a good science background, are his books a good choice? Is there something that might be technical, but still understandable to a non-biologist?

Dave

Schrodinger's book was written before Watson and Cricks' unravelling of the structure of DNA. So as far as it went it was predicting what the properties of DNA would need to be like to explain how that part of evolution could work.

Noggin

>>""that seems to be genetic prediction, not an evolution prediction."
>>Think hard. What's the difference?"
I think the difference is that genetics is talking about the chemical reactions of DNA

And the difference is...? I'm not being obtuse here. I think you're using the wrong definition of "evolution" if you think that the reactions of DNA are somehow separate from it and part of something else.

"As the web site even says, the theory as presented has nothing to do with selection of traits - no allele will ever be completely removed. By itself, how does this explain the extinction of a species?"

The two crucial words there are "by itself". And by itself, it doesn't. But it isn't by itself. Evolution is not about organisms - it's about organisms *in an environment*. If you try and look just at the organisms involved (as Creationists often do, on the grounds they don't believe the environment has changed significantly at any point in its six thousand year history...) then obviously you'll have trouble explaining extinctions. And yet, extinctions manifestly DO occur. Unfortunately with increasing frequency...

>>"Evolution explains the formation and destruction of new species"
>>No it doesn't.

>Why don't you tell me one or two sentence description of evolution then?

Phew... erm... evolution explains the observed variation in organisms by noting that a combination of random mutation and natural selection lead to the proliferation of organisms best suited to the prevailing environment, and the reduction in population of organisms less suited.

Long winded. But more accurate, I think... But hey, I'm not a biologist.

>>"Are lions and tigers separate species? Most people would say "yes".
>Who cares what most people say? I'm interested in the technical classification. Are they actually classified as two separate species? According to what you've said, they aren't. Fine.

Well, actually they are. If you wanna get technical, the lion's species is Panthera leo, and there are still a few Panthera leo persica about in Asia. The tiger, on the other hand, is Panthera tigris. However, although any man in the street could tell one from the other if it was alive, it would take an expert to distinguish the skeletons. There are many behavioural differences between the two - lions are quite sociable creatures whereas tigers are generally solitary. They don't roar as much, either.

But despite the different colours, the different scientific names (not just "most people" then) and the different behaviours, put a lion in a cage with a tiger of the opposite sex, and sooner or later you'll have baby ligers, or tigons, depending on which is which.

>Fine, throw out every use of the offensive word "species".

OK.

>What I'm saying is that the "variation in allele frequency..." is simple mathematics/genetics. You're claiming that's all evolution is.

... OK.

>I thought evolution explained the history of the development of life.

Pretty much.

>I don't see how *BY ITSELF* the above statement can carry out this explaination. Don't you need to have some allele's disappearing from the gene pool? In the simple frequency theories, how will the number ever reach zero, without external influences?

And there's the nub. Why would you ever try to even *think* about evolution without considering "external influences"? Environment is what drives natural selection. Polar bears are not white because it's fashionable. Seals don't have an insulating layer of fat because they eat too many hamburgers. And stick insects don't look like sticks by accident. There are TWO mechanisms at work, and they're completely interdependent - the mutation and variation in alleles within the population and secondly, the success or otherwise of organisms carrying those modified genes. And that success is based on how well they're able to mate, which implies living long enough and looking good enough to attract a partner. Which implies adaption to the environment they find themself in.

>>""history doesn't make predictions"
>>Of course history makes predictions! ..."
Let me run something by you: History is a social science. Biology is a hard science. Are you seriously telling me that the predictions of social sciences are held to the same standards as hard sciences?

No. Not at all. I was just pointing out that history can and does make predictions. Not ones you want to bet your shirt on, perhaps... and yet people do, all the time. People EXPECT the predictions of "history" to be "hard", and get annoyed when they're not. Which is their tough luck for not reading the small print.

"Are you really telling me that you personally value the two equally?"

Me? Not at all. I'm telling you, even though I don't think I should have to, that it's *obvious* that many people value the two equally - in fact, I would suggest given the current public suspicion of biologists, that a person making predictions in economics would be far more likely to be believed than a biologist who was basing their prediction on much harder data.

"That, for example, your algorithm of weather prediction is as valuable as Newton's for gravity?"

Different problem. Chaos theory enters the fray, one thing at a time...

"Maybe you're saying that you're only holding evolution to the standards of a soft science"

Absolutely not. Evolution is as "hard" as... oh, to pick an example, quantum theory - which is to say, most people don't understand it, people who DO understand are still arguing about it, but the fact that the people who DO understand it are arguing about it is not a cue for people actively don't WANT to understand it to go claiming it's all a load of rubbish.

"..Richard Dawkins... are his books a good choice? Is there something that might be technical, but still understandable to a non-biologist?"

Yup. "Climbing Mount Improbable" and "The Selfish Gene" are good ones. Have fun...

H.

*coming back in the morning, against one's better judgement*

Hey, it might be fun...

H

I'm very disapointed in your response. You broke apart the arguments I had into individual sentences, and then you attacked these, rather than looking at the whole paragraph. Yes, if you take each sentence separately, and out of context, you can make them look pretty stupid. Well done.

I'm only going to make 2 main points:
1) You make it sounds as if *I* wanted to separate genetics & evolution. All I was saying was that making predictions in genetics is not the same as making evolutionary predictions. You yourself say repeatedly the environment comes into play - and yet in the simple genetics calculations, these are not involved. Therefore, you've succesfully argued *my* point - that although genetics makes hard testable predictions, these by themselves are not the theory of evolution - you still need the environment. Thank you, I couldn't have proved it better myself.

2) The point of #1 is that just because genetics makes testable predictions, that's not the same as evolution making predictions. And since evolution *DOES NOT* make *hard* predictions, it is not a *GOOD* scientific theory.

At the end of your dissection, you manage to obscure the point that in *YOUR* post, *YOU* were claiming that history does make predictions, and evolution makes predictions in this same vein. I was just pointing out that these predictions aren't *hard*.

Physics, Chemistry and Biology are *THE* hard sciences, as it stands now. You have proven that evolution has the same predictive power as history, which is a *SOFT* science.

Dave

Noggin -

So what the book did was predict the structure of how genetics would have to work? That's not an evolutionary prediction then, just genetics.

Dave

Ste-

Do you have references to text books or papers in which they compare the predictions of the evolutionary models with observed trends?

Dave

Ok this is going to sound strange coming from me, but creation is a theroy and so is evolution. A theroy can not be proven 100% correct as all you can do is compare how the evidence fits the theroy but as its a theroy it can not really be proved wrong either. I believe creation is right but thats my view point based on the evidence I have seen and what my religion says. The problam is I can not read the whole Quran in Arabic as my Arabic is not good enough so I have to read the translated version mostley. For all I know Allah says he made evolution. As when people translate the Quran its through perception of what they have read. The only way some one can prove the Quran wrong is by learning Quran to scholer level and then arguing it.
Every quate I use is mine or some ones perception of what is ment in english. Arabic can not actually be translated in to other languages and stay true to whats being said.
SO the problem is here is we are arguing towards to theroys that both can not be proven 100% right.
Am I making sense?
Adib
Oh sorry I have not written recently I do not have access to internet on weekends and untill after christmas some time work is keeping me very busy. Sniff.

Allah HAfiz

Adib

"creation is a theroy and so is evolution"

No, no, no.

Creation is a story, a piece of fantasy, a work of interesting fiction.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

- It is subject to rigorous testing against the evidence of reality.
- It can be falsified: in fact a SINGLE piece of evidence could conceivably falsify the WHOLE of evolutionary theory. (ONE fossil of, say, a rabbit in a 200 million year old rock would do it).
- It has explanatory power.
- It conforms to observations in a wide range of disciplines.

NONE of these things is true of Creationism.

It's quite funny, in a way, that you're bemoaning your imperfect understanding of Arabic, when it's your understanding of ENGLISH that's at fault here. You're misunderstanding two, quite different, usages of the word "theory". One possible meaning of that word is "pretty much anything you can dream up while drunk": e.g. I have a theory that gravity is caused by pink fluffy bunnies. It's mine, and it's CERTAINLY a theory. However, it's not a theory in the same way evolution is a theory.

Analogy: let's say you're at work. Your computer isn't working. You call the IT department. Amazingly, they understand your problem - your graphics card is broken. "It's OK", they say, "we'll send you another card". You relax. Then the card arrives - and it's a card, alright. A postcard, with some graphics on it. There's no denying that it's a graphics card - but clearly it's not the right thing.

Creation is a theory, just as my assertion that gravity is caused by pink fluffy bunnies is a theory. It has exactly as much value.

Evolution is something qualitatively different. It's disturbingly difficult to get most Creationists to understand this...

H.

Thanks for the houmour. So what about bee's, ants, turtles etc they hane fossil dating millions of years in the same form as today.
Adib

Creation is fantasy. Hmmm ignorance of a materilist scientist.
Nothing short of God coming down and saying I'm god to you will make you even consider his existance. Even then you would not believe.
In the Quran it says there are those who are blind regardless of all evidence. I think you fit in that discription.
Whats wrong H doe's it scare you that not every thing can be explained, and you may be put in question of your actions.
You say its a fantasy but have you read all the religous scriptures have you read the Quran. Have you seen any thing that is scientificly wrong in it. Does it not contain info on things that could not have been known back then. Well you would not know your ignorance will not let you pick up a Quran and read it.
Are you scared you might discover something.
I'm not trying to convert you H all I'm saying is how can you say there is no god unless you can find holes in the religous texts.
In Islam we believe that the Quran is the word of God and all other religous books have been distorted over time.
If a book is from God then it must be accurate for all time with no discrepences.
Many scientists have looked for faults in the Quran and have found none. Some of those scientists have even converted to Islam.
Saying religion is a fantasy is stupid for a scientist to say. Where is the proof in what you say?
The Quran says that in it is a sign for those of intelligence.
It challanges science to challange it and every one who has so far have found it does not contradict science one bit.

Allah hafiz.

Adib