Is science being unduly influenced?

[Chameleon]

Everyone remembers how the Catholic church unduly influenced science then there was the Copernican revolution and now we have all this wonderful astronomy. I would like to leave religion out of this discussion and keep it on a friendly level. I think the same is happening to biology today. I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, where bacteria develop immunity to antibodies. The problem I see is science forcing a square peg in a round hole. A. Huxley said "there are no transitional forms", then why do they still search and act as if there are?
Neanderthol man is a good example. Some scientists that examined these fossils concluded this is evidence for evolution. They do not allow just anyone to examine these fossils, specifically non-Darwinists aren't allowed to examine them. In the 1970's unknowingly one such scientist was was allowed to examine the fossils. He took pictures and X-rays with the jawbone in the correct position. Then did what scientist are supposed to and let the data speak for itself. Neanderthol man is not some missing link but actually a human that lived to be 800-900 years old. He drew the conclusion humans are actually devolving.

Unlike Neanderthol man, Piltdown man was a forgery. Introduced in 1916, if wasn't exposed as a forgery until the 1950's. Incidentally, this is the time when they began teaching Darwinian evolution in schools. It wasn't that it was such a good forgery. It's that it took that long before anyone was allowed to examine them.
I think science needs to remove the Darwin bias and just
If examine the data, then come to a conclusion. For all I know if doctors understood we were devolving it could give them a fresh perspective on old problems. we all heard of a different set of eyes.

[mrwho]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I don't believe there's a "Darwin bias". Darwin's theory isn't generally accepted because he was such a nice fellow - the reason why it is considered by most as the most accurate theory is because the data he provided could be confirmed by other scientists, and continues to be reinforced with every new discovery - there are some loose ends, but they appear to be caused by lack of information rather than the theory being inacurate.

With that being said, and as I said before, it is still a theory, but until a better theory - backed up by valid and repeatable data - comes up, it will stand as the leading theory for species evolution.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

and continues to be reinforced with every new discovery.

No disrespect but I disagree. The newest discoveries only show how wrong he was. DNA, complexity of life, no transitional forms all prove his original theory totally wrong. what is being reinforced are his conclusions, by forcing the data to fit.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

No disrespect but I disagree. The newest discoveries only show how wrong he was. DNA, complexity of life, no transitional forms all prove his original theory totally wrong. what is being reinforced are his conclusions, by forcing the data to fit.

Just because the transitional forms have not been discovered, does not mean they did not exist. The giant squid was known to exist for the longest time based on injuries seen on humpback whales, yet no proof was able to be given of their existence until a live specimen was captured (and subsequently died minutes later) and then finally filmed in the arctic waters. That does not mean it did not exist, merely that it had not been documented.

Life is complex, I will concede that fact, however with the mapping of genomes our understanding only grows. If the conclusion is being supported by the data, does that not mean the conclusion is a logical one? Not debating whether it's right or wrong, but simple logistics. The data would not support something with no ground, as you put it, fitting a square peg in a round hole. The explanations presently are conclusions that either we are separate organisms from Homo Erectus etc., or we have evolved from them over the course of many thousands of years. The conclusion can't be changed by lack of data, and the data can't be forced to fit a conclusion that makes no sense.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I'll use the fruit fly study.
[DATA] scientists observe fruit flies over multiple generations. They find some get big, some get smaller, some become wingless, some get bigger wings, some change color.
[ CONCLUSION] Fruit flies were once ameobas.
That does not seem like a logical conclusion from the data.

[rthonpm]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Transitional forms can also be problematic to spot. Say for instance that the change is internal or unable to be detected by fossil records as it happened with internal organs or skin or hair colour, how would you spot that? Besides, bodies are composed of cells which are small enough to be affected by gradual evolutionary shifts.

As for devolution: if there was a strong enough case to be made in a single scientist's data to suggest such a possibility there would be a good deal of research thrown towards it.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I'll use the fruit fly study.
[DATA] scientists observe fruit flies over multiple generations. They find some get big, some get smaller, some become wingless, some get bigger wings, some change color.
[ CONCLUSION] Fruit flies were once ameobas.
That does not seem like a logical conclusion from the data.

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this post. It seems very illogical and pieced together here with two bits of unrelated data for the sake of the argument.

[DATA] Scientists observe a face carved into the face of mars.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.
[DATA] Scientists observe a strange arrangement of large stones in a circle.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.
[DATA] Scientists observe a large triangle built out of thousands of pounds of sand in the shape of blocks, these triangles have lasted several thousand years.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.

The lack of data given and the randomness of the conclusion means absolutely nothing. There have been dozens of studies conducted on fruit flies due to their short life spans and high rate of reproduction. One in particular was done to determine whether or not a society based on heterosexual reproduction between a male and female could survive if the population shifted to predominantly male or predominantly female. Do you think the data collected from this would have anything to do with the origin of the species?

The conclusion must be supported by the data, and the lack of would indicate either a lack of data or an incorrect conclusion. The fact you're noting genetic mutation and not evolution does nothing to support your conclusion either, though you do have the base data for a compelling argument about the rapidness of change that genetic mutation can bring to a species.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

As for devolution: if there was a strong enough case to be made in a single scientist's data to suggest such a possibility there would be a good deal of research thrown towards it.

No disrespect but I strongly disagree, which explains the name of this thread. In light of the fact that some sceintists refuse to allow others to examine their work and are willing to make forgeries I disagree there would be.

[mrwho]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

No disrespect but I strongly disagree, which explains the name of this thread. In light of the fact that some sceintists refuse to allow others to examine their work and are willing to make forgeries I disagree there would be.

What's stopping you from getting some fruit flies and doing your own research? It's not rocket science, you know...

Nothing is stopping anyone from trying to replicate the same results, and that's what's best about science - if someone makes a bold claim he must prove that claim is true before it being accepted, as opposed to religion, where the person making a claim (the dragon in the garage) tells you that if you can't prove he's wrong, then the claim must be true.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

the lack of would indicate either a lack of data or an incorrect conclusion.

I strongly agree. If that is true, then the moth or bacteria examples can only conclude minute changes within a species and say nothing about evolution. I am discussing macro-evolution. The theory all life evolved from an ameoba not minute changes within a species.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I strongly agree. If that is true, then the moth or bacteria examples can only conclude minute changes within a species and say nothing about evolution. I am discussing macro-evolution. The theory all life evolved from an ameoba not minute changes within a species.

On the macro level, until we're able to get a sample of a fossilized amoeba, we'll just have to do with our genome mapping and figure out where the origin of species began to the best of the data we have at hand.

Also, we're speaking of evolution as a concept and not the origin of species. The same concept of evolution that is being removed from some schools in favour of creationism, due to the unwillingness to accept the fact that over time some species will adapt and change to better suit their environments, vis a vis survival of the fittest.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

What's stopping you from getting some fruit flies and doing your own research? It's not rocket science, you know...

Nothing is stopping anyone from trying to replicate the same results, and that's what's best about science - if someone makes a bold claim he must prove that claim is true before it being accepted, as opposed to religion, where the person making a claim (the dragon in the garage) tells you that if you can't prove he's wrong, then the claim must be true.

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution. They say that somehow life "evolved" from a rock (planet earth) with nothing organic on it. I am not a genius, but, even I can see a flaw in that conclusion. And lets say, for the sake of argument, somehow, this stuff developed in that primordial pond. Scientists can't seem to explain how it became both plant and animal. That is a pretty big stumbling block in my opinion.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

On the macro level, until we're able to get a sample of a fossilized amoeba, we'll just have to do with our genome mapping and figure out where the origin of species began to the best of the data we have at hand.

Also, we're speaking of evolution as a concept and not the origin of species. The same concept of evolution that is being removed from some schools in favour of creationism, due to the unwillingness to accept the fact that over time some species will adapt and change to better suit their environments, vis a vis survival of the fittest.

It would make my day if schools just taught reading, writing, math, chemistry, physics and if they even had to teach biology do it without the ~isms.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution. They say that somehow life "evolved" from a rock (planet earth) with nothing organic on it. I am not a genius, but, even I can see a flaw in that conclusion. And lets say, for the sake of argument, somehow, this stuff developed in that primordial pond. Scientists can't seem to explain how it became both plant and animal. That is a pretty big stumbling block in my opinion.

Saying scientists haven't proven anything about evolution is about as far from the truth as can be. You're again, focusing on the origin of species, which is up in the air for debate the same way the concept of an omniscient deity is up in the air for debate.

Science can determine common traits and make educated guesses based on that, and in some cases replicate it as well. Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved to require only a single toe in a hoof, whereas the rhino still has 3 toes to this day. Find me an example of anything presently that was at one point a single organism that has presently evolved into both a plant and animal. There are aspects of our world that work in specific ways to prevent genetic freaks from occurring, such as a cat and a dog reproducing. They're too different, and thus nature won't allow a pairing of the different species. Lions and tigers, as another example, share so much similarities in their genetic code that they can successfully reproduce (A liger, or a tion, depending on which was the male and which was the female. Both create their own separate sub-species just based on who had the sausage at the party).

If you can find the link that says creature x and creature y are now a plant and an animal, but organism w was a common ancestor to both, you may have just solved your own origin of species issue. It's just a matter of what traits some of the primitive eukaryotic cells developed, eg. photosynthesis.

[mrwho]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Scientists haven't proven anything about evolution.

I'll say it again: Evolution Theory!