ScottL wrote:
Not to pile on, but this has been observed repeatedly over several generations of E. Coli so unless you're refuting 30-40 years worth of experimental observation with some kind of backing and avidence, I'm going to go with the researchers ont his one who have samples of each generation.
This is not an example of the kind of structural development characteristic of evolution. It is a good example of natural selection. Anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria are not believed to develop because of the antibiotic use, but rather to have existed beforehand and when their competitors are removed, then thrive. Evolutionary biologists point this out often and people misquote them just as often as having an example of evolution, which it is not.
To be clear, even if a new bacteria were to emerge and provide an example of mutation, this does not entail a structural development. Evolution proposes that random mutation and natural selection constantly give rise to structure that supports new function.Evolutionary biologiosts have always been quite open about the fact that this requires such long periods of time that we cannot expect to observe it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:There is no significant consensus as regards what qualifies as science and what does not.
Maybe not amongst philosophers, but there is amongst scientists.
Maybe I should be a little more specific so you're not confused by the claim. There is no single such thing as "scientific method" that has been accepted by scientists and/or philosophers. What promotes itself as science variably includes things like observability, repeatability and falsifiability. There are other components that are at times used and at other times not, but what is called "science" does not always include any of these components. That's why it's fair to admit there is no single thing nor definition that comprises science.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
ScottL wrote:
Not to pile on, but this has been observed repeatedly over several generations of E. Coli so unless you're refuting 30-40 years worth of experimental observation with some kind of backing and avidence, I'm going to go with the researchers ont his one who have samples of each generation.
This is not an example of the kind of structural development characteristic of evolution. It is a good example of natural selection. Anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria are not believed to develop because of the antibiotic use, but rather to have existed beforehand and when their competitors are removed, then thrive. Evolutionary biologists point this out often and people misquote them just as often as having an example of evolution, which it is not.
To be clear, even if a new bacteria were to emerge and provide an example of mutation, this does not entail a structural development. Evolution proposes that random mutation and natural selection constantly give rise to structure that supports new function.Evolutionary biologiosts have always been quite open about the fact that this requires such long periods of time that we cannot expect to observe it.
If we're dismissing natural selection and only focusing on true mutation, hell Neanderthals vs Homo Sapiens and their split from a common ancestor. One got a bigger brain, one didn't, that would be a mutation.
Scott, I agree that this split is an example of evolution. It is however, an example like all examples, not an example that has been directly observed. This is one of the reasons that Evolution is considered an exception to the general rule, because it involves timespans so large that direct observation is not possible. We therefore make indirect observations about the mechanisms we suppose operate over these very lengthy time periods by looking at the fossil record.
BTW, you can't "dismiss" natural selection. Without it as understood in its proper form Evolution cannot obtain as a theory.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:To be clear, even if a new bacteria were to emerge and provide an example of mutation, this does not entail a structural development. Evolution proposes that random mutation and natural selection constantly give rise to structure that supports new function.Evolutionary biologiosts have always been quite open about the fact that this requires such long periods of time that we cannot expect to observe it.
Fascinating study I was not familiar with! I especially like that he chose a bacteria that doe snot reproduce sexually so all changes are examples of mutations.
This might well be an exception to the rule that we don't directly observe evolution, though some will quibble that there are no new structures here. I'd have to argue that such a distinction is without a difference and that this is a direct observation of evolution.
I'd note that back when I studied such things 25+ years ago, none of this was current science, and that at least until this study began in 2000, Evolution was generally accepted without any direct observations.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:To be clear, even if a new bacteria were to emerge and provide an example of mutation, this does not entail a structural development. Evolution proposes that random mutation and natural selection constantly give rise to structure that supports new function.Evolutionary biologiosts have always been quite open about the fact that this requires such long periods of time that we cannot expect to observe it.
It is a nice experiment, and also worth noting that all this can happen without the (known, from AI investigation) benefits of crossover introduced by sexual reproduction.
Well Tom, I suggest just shrug. The ID people are always going to have answers like this and even though it's popular to ostracize them, I think it's important to realize that it is only because of ID arguments that we have such experiments and improvements in Evolution as a theory over the last few decades. Truth is, if Stephen Jay Gould hadn't been beaten badly in debate back in the 80's, we would likely not have the improvement of Punctuated Equilibrium. The then called "Creationists" were entirely correct that the fossil record did not explain Evolution as it was being promoted, and yet even at that time when the theory did not possess significant explanatory power, all of academia in the West ostracized all who dared to doubt Evolution, just as they still do today.
It's humbling to note that evolutionary science would not be moving forward at all, were it not for the dissent that struggles to survive. Rather, we'd have only the church of science, and those who punish heretics for the angst they generate in the complacent masses.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
If we're dismissing natural selection and only focusing on true mutation, hell Neanderthals vs Homo Sapiens and their split from a common ancestor. One got a bigger brain, one didn't, that would be a mutation.
You do know that neanderthals had the larger brains?
If we're dismissing natural selection and only focusing on true mutation, hell Neanderthals vs Homo Sapiens and their split from a common ancestor. One got a bigger brain, one didn't, that would be a mutation.
You do know that neanderthals had the larger brains?
Good job in pointing out the obvious. Yes, they had larger protective stores around their brain, glad you're reading.
Good job in pointing out the obvious. Yes, they had larger protective stores around their brain, glad you're reading.
Your effort to explain away your mistake failed. Human and neanderthal brains overlapped in size, so using that as your example was pointless. Neanderthal brains were probably slightly larger but there aren't enough specimens to be certain.
What are these mythical "protective stores" around the brain? Surely you are not talking about the thicker skull as that doesn't effect the actual brain size comparison?
The difference in skull shape suggests a different brain development but that is not what you compared.
GIThruster wrote:Well Tom, I suggest just shrug. The ID people are always going to have answers like this and even though it's popular to ostracize them, I think it's important to realize that it is only because of ID arguments that we have such experiments and improvements in Evolution as a theory over the last few decades. Truth is, if Stephen Jay Gould hadn't been beaten badly in debate back in the 80's, we would likely not have the improvement of Punctuated Equilibrium. The then called "Creationists" were entirely correct that the fossil record did not explain Evolution as it was being promoted, and yet even at that time when the theory did not possess significant explanatory power, all of academia in the West ostracized all who dared to doubt Evolution, just as they still do today.
It's humbling to note that evolutionary science would not be moving forward at all, were it not for the dissent that struggles to survive. Rather, we'd have only the church of science, and those who punish heretics for the angst they generate in the complacent masses.
The "church of science" continually questions itself and changes. You don't need fringe and rubbish challenges for this. In fact "church of science" is a bad analogy. there is no single scientific dogma.