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

I think Dr Jeffreyo likes to play devil's advocate, a stance which upon occasion can be challenging and stimulating in debate forums. However, in this case it seems to simply reveal a lack of understanding.


az

>> >>"...it's the only scientifically proven account of the origin and development of life on Earth."

>>"I must have been out the day that the theory of evolution became absolute and proven fact."

Someone [else] assuming 'scientifically proven' means 'absolute fact'?
One a day is more than enough for me.

Hey Dr J

Have you gotten a chance to read my description of the light-sensitive one celled organism, and formulate a response? I'm still waiting.

Yeah, nice link to nonsense. Thanks, I haven't laughed so hard in years. "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. I'll ask again for the media reports that revealed that any evolutionary theory has been proven to be -as you put it- a cold hard fact. As long as you can't support your side of the argument with actual literature produced by and aggreed upon by the scientific community in general I must consider your statements as puer. Perhaps you need a larger dictionary?

I'm confused.

You ask for media reports and I offered a review article that provided reference to, among other things, reports in Discover magazine. Does Discover not count as 'media'? What are you looking for? A story from Fox News?

I've got a pretty big dictionary myself. It seems to me that what you're really asking us to have is a smaller one.

Me too. What an obnoxious post. I'm tempted not to feed the troll.

Did you not read the link? It's correct. That evolution happens is a fact. The ways in which it happens is theory. What's the problem?

"As long as you can't support your side of the argument with actual literature produced by and aggreed upon by the scientific community in general I must consider your statements as puer"

Err... Do you want me to post a link to every scientific journal in the past century that takes evolution for a fact? You want a link from a news organisation that states evolution as fact? Why does news carry more weight than scientific journals for a question of science?

How bizarre...

Ste

Hey Dr J.

You asked for how an eye could developp, via small incremental changes. I started to provide that, starting with a one-celled organism. Why are you now ignoring that post? Have you conceded the point?

Dave

Here's ONE article from Public Library of Science (chosen because it is open and free, so the link should not require subscription) that discusses HOW evolution occurs. Notice how it doesn't question WHETHER evolution occurs. That is because the scientific community takes it for a fact.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245

(I also chose that paper because it is the first time I have been cited! Hee! - I am an evolutionary biologist in the middle of a PhD)

Ste

PS. Tell me if the link doesn't work

The link works fine.


Isn't it fun when you get cited?


It's even better when you cite yourself.

<>



And to think I knew you back in the days when you were trying to teach kittens to go in the toilet . . .


az

"It's even better when you cite yourself."

Oooo! I can't wait. Should be writing another paper sometime next week. I should be working on the data right now. Damn h2g2.

Ste

"And to think I knew you back in the days when you were trying to teach kittens to go in the toilet"

Hahaha. They go happily now. They like it.

That paper is actually a very good review. I think it is very well written. I was very surprised to find myself in there.

I'm glad other people can see the link. PLoS is a series of journals whose mission is to provide free open access to everyone. Scientists love that kind of stuff so it has become quite prestigious quite quickly. Hence, lots of quality articles.

I'll be a *very* happy person if I ever publish in PLoS Biology.



Ste

'"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.'

We can, actually.

This may be because of a simple misunderstanding. Dr Jeffreyo, I'll ask you a direct question: What is your understanding of the word "theory"?

Thanks,

Ste

For those who haven't yet seen this send up of the theory of "Intelligent Design", it's well worth the read...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

HS, it turned up in the 'Times Online'. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1765113,00.html

'EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN scientists have come up with an alternative theory of gravity: intelligent falling.'


alji

Yes, and no-but you're entitled to your opinion no matter how insipid I or anyone else thinks it is. I could counter that the lack of understanding resides elsewhere, but that would be insulting and derogatory and oppose the stimulation of intelligent debate, wouldn't it?


"We apologise for the inconvenience." There IS life outside of this thread.
This being your statement unless I'm mistaken, with my comments inside the {} while wearing the ID patch playing the role of the believer of ID this being spelled out for those who have short term memory problems:
<OK, single celled organism, floating in the primordial soup, with flagellum. Mutation causes modification of a glyo-protein in the cell membrane, such that it undergoes a chemical reaction when a photon hits it {neat, now can you describe this change, how it could affect the whole membrane, the chemical reaction and where the associated chemicals came from?}. The changed shape of the glyco-protein causes the function of the cell membrane to change - now there is a slightly different balance of ions within the cell with respect to outside the cell{Which ions, any in particular?}. This change naturally causes a change in functions throughout the cell, such that the flagellum become more active{Assumption that activity increases-why does all this change NOT cause the opposite reaction?}.

As long as photons continue to strike our mutant glyco-protein, the chemical balance in the cell remains perturbed, and the flagellum continue to be "hyper" active{a nice little scenario you've developed here}. Thus the one celled organism "seeks" out dark areas {From where does it acquire this ability to seek either light OE dark areas? It now has the ability to learn? Let's just add this to the assumptions list for now.} in which it "hides" because once in the dark, the odds of a photon striking the glyco-protein and reactiviting it and the flagellum are greatly reduced{so it seems to dislike highly active flagellum?}.

The advantage of being in the dark is protection from harmful UV rays (which the early atmosphere did not screen) which can kill cells outright{It can, and prior to this mutation all those in the light would have died or at least gotten some nasty sunburn. Leaving the majority of the undistrubed population already in the dark why would they need to "seek" darkness to "hide" in?}. Thus increasing the survival of our little friend{Over what other situation? Over being light sensitive and staying in the dark? Over being indifferent to light and leaving the dark-which had been taking place all the while? Simply because this single, slight mutation causes excessive activity-leaping to the possibility that this would also cause the creature to "seek" darkness-does not in itself provide for an increase in survival. I can see that this could just create more food for the other dark dwellers, or more food for the light dwellers with all the extra motion attracting attention-either way I see more deaths.}
This is part 1 in the development of the eye. Stay tuned for more.

The formatting of the previous post (516) with the '{}' characters made it extremely hard to pick out answers from replies, to the extent I got part way through, then skimmed to double check the rest of the post was as bad, and found it was.

Reading the post straight through, it made some sense, but any kind of backing-up to check earlier points, or an attempt to read *just* one side first and understand where the quoted text as a whole was coming from was a no-no.

I'm not sure how many people would bother reading the post sufficiently to find out if there were any worthwhile points being made.

Intelligent debate? With Doc J? Give over!

I realised that he had lost the plot when he claimed to have read Darwin's book. If he did, he didn't understand any of it. Not that I'm saying he's thick or anything...

The wean.

Sorry, I'll repost in a different format after a word from my sponsor:



With you I agree it's not possible. You, like any other poster, are entitled to your opinion. I, when reading your comments, must consider the source and therefore find you only mildly amusing as you try and exercise your zipper.

Now to re-post:


Neat, now can you describe this change, how it could affect the whole membrane, the chemical reaction and where the associated chemicals came from?



Which ions, any in particular? And you'll have to explain how a change in the membrane such that it has become sensitive to light has caused an ion imbalance between what is inside compared to what's outside.



It's an assumption that activity increases, specifically that it NATURALLY increases; why does all this change NOT cause the opposite reaction and DECREASE activity?



A nice little scenario you've developed here, but it's just one assumption followed by another.



From where does it acquire this ability to seek either light OE dark areas? It now has the ability to learn? Or is this just another "natural" thing? Let's just add this to the assumptions list for now.

<...in which it "hides" because once in the dark, the odds of a photon striking the glyco-protein and reactiviting it and the flagellum are greatly reduced.>

So it seems to dislike highly active flagellum? It can now choose to be in the light as opposed tothe dark? It has developed directional control using the flagellum? Awesome.

The advantage of being in the dark is protection from harmful UV rays (which the early atmosphere did not screen) which can kill cells outright.>

It can, and prior to this mutation all those in the light would have died or at least gotten some nasty sunburn, leaving the majority of the undisturbed population already in the dark so why would they need to "seek" darkness to "hide" in?



Over what other situation? Over being light sensitive and staying in the dark? Over being indifferent to light and leaving the dark-which had been taking place all the while? Simply because this single, slight mutation causes excessive activity-leaping to the possibility that this would also cause the creature to "seek" darkness-does not in itself provide for an increase in survival. I can see that this could just create more food for the other dark dwellers, or more food for the light dwellers with all the extra motion attracting attention-either way I see more deaths.



Ok, does that make for easier reading? I hope so. I can't wait to see how we get from here to a functional eye.



Sure, so does the Enquirer; that doesn't mean it's authoritative-I don't know of any medical professionals who alter their practice based on articles in Discover. I also missed the part where it states that evolution is a "cold hard fact" and where this was pointed out.



At last the light begins to shine. Evolutionary theory is not a fact, this is why it's called a theory. If it WERE a fact then the word theory would be absent. A theory is nothing more than a useful way to explain a group of facts and can be useful in determining the actual cause of the facts. Some other definitions of theory:

A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena

A well-substantiated explanation

A concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

A working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

Abstract reasoning; speculation

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge

A conjecture

I think that's enough.

There once was a theory surrounding combustion-the phlogiston theory. It stated that the substance Phlogiston existed in the atmosphere and it was required for combustion. The proof was offered by experimentation: a lit candle was sealed in a glass jar. Shortly afterwards the candle went out and it was the conclusion that all of the phlogiston was used up. Well there WAS something that was used up but it wasn't phlogiston, it was oxygen, as discovered many years later. In the meantime this theory was accepted as fact. Currently it may be that evolutionary processes are accepted as fact, this however does not mean that they are, in fact, fact [pun intended].

Hello Dr J

So, you agree that evolution is a fact. And you are arguing that the processes that drive evolution are not fact, they are theory. Fair enough.

However, there are evolutionary processes that we know so much about, that we have gathered so much evidence about, that they too can be treated as fact - mutation, natural selection, drift, gene duplication, etc., all happen. Do we know everything about how evolution occurs? Certainly not, otherwise being an evolutionary biologist would be a very dull and unproductive career choice.

There is such a wealth of information on these evolutionary processes, that the information is so overwhelming and present such a complete picture that it is highly unlikely that any concept could come along and unseat them (though not, of course, impossible). This isn't just one piece of evidence, as with your interesting phlogiston example. Current evolutionary theory more than satisfactorily explains evolution.

When it comes down to it, isn't your argument merely a semantic one, debating the meaning of the words "fact" and "theory" in a scientific context?

All the best,
Ste