mormonsandscience

Facts which are the building blocks of science must be honestly and accurately observed. In science, as in every human activity, dishonesty, carelessness, or aberrations of senses or mind may be encountered. We expect science to present accurately observed and fully corroborated facts. Loose methods of study are not acceptable. Indeed the vast body of scientific facts has been so carefully garnered that it may in the main be accepted without question.

The interpretation of observed facts must be distinctly labeled as inferences or theories and not confused with facts. The human mind properly attempts to explain or interpret the phenomena of nature, the facts of observation. Most inferences, however, are in a condition of constant change, due to the continuing accumulation of new knowledge.

In this particular all thinkers sound a warning to science. There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. Readers of science should always keep this difference in mind. Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label. The facts discovered by an eminent investigator may be safely accepted; his explanations may be of doubtful value.

To my knowledge, macroevolution among the higher forms of animal life, is still very much in the inferential stage of scientific research. Science still has a very long way to go before they can call it an established, observable fact.

Your last paragraph is confused on a number of levels.

1) If you write a post criticizing evolution, then you are being anti-evolution. That's just what it means, how could someone possibly be misguided in this.

2) Science feeds on the dogmatism of scientists, thereby fueling critical thought. It is the entire enterprise of science as a whole which is supposed to be neutral. But nowhere has anybody ever had the delusions that scientist are or even should be objective in the manner you suggest. Maybe science should be tentative toward all theories, but scientists should not.

Dave C said:

>>“ I am a dye-in-the-wool microevolutionist”<<

I think it’s important to define macroevolution and microevolution here.

From wikipedia:

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.”

I think you will find that definition is accurate, no matter the source.

So are you saying that the same methods used to test microevolution (subspecific level) won’t hold up if used at or above the species level?

There are nearly countless ways that macroevolution has been and is being tested. If you have a hypothesis that two species are closely related/sister taxa — even across macroevolutionary resolutions that span genera or families, then you can test that hypothesis through many different fields of study and many different tools and methods. Let's take humans and chimps for an example. Not because I know that this example will get your ire up the most (though that is tempting), but because it's one of the best studied examples. :)

*First, you can test the hypothesis by comparing behavior. Let's take tool and weapon use. Of all animals, humans use tools and weapons the most, but of all the animals, chimps and great apes, by far come in second place, using tiny twigs to catch termites and larger ones to kill prey and enemies. This is exactly what your hypothesis and evolution theory would predict.

What about parental care behavior? Maybe you could look among all of the animals and see which ones have two breasts and cradle their infants while sitting upright.

see here http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/images/bonobo_mom_baby.jpg

Okay, we could go on and on in testing the behavioral department and find further confirmation, so let's move on to another method of inquiry.

*Second, you can test the hypothesis by comparing morphology between humans and all other animals and seeing which one(s) share the most synapomorphies with humans. Out of millions of types of organiams, it turns out that chimpanzees win again.

*Third, you can test the hypothesis by comparing biogeography. Closely related species should have their origins in similar parts of the world. All of our closest living relatives, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas come from Africa. As for humans, it turns out that the Out of Africa hypothesis has been supported by testing, since nearly all hominids come from that region too.

*To boot, population genetics tells us that the most diverse populations will be the place where the lineage came from. It has been confirmed that humans are more diverse in genetic makeup in Africa than in any other place in the world. This also happens to be the place where great apes are the most diverse. So, even more evidence from comparative biogeography.

*Fifth, you can test the hypothesis by comparing human DNA with the DNA of other organisms and seeing which one most resembles that of humans. Chimps again! (Since DNA comparisons test evolutionary distance, i.e. that I'm 100% related to myself, that I'm less related to my sister, and even less related to my cousin [and thus, confirms our theories of Most Recent Common Ancestors], it should also show that distance between species. And guess what, it does. When molecular biology/comparing DNA tests was discovered, this was the thing that could have blown the Theory of Evolution to smithereens, but it has stood up, and has been confirmed in even greater detail. Very cool.)

*Sixth, you can test it by comparing karyotype (or number of chromosomes). Evolution theory predicts that closely related species will have similar/close numbers of chromosomes.

For example, Mules and Hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62.

In 1925, the evolutionary relatedness of ratsnakes was tested by comparing morphology. This led to a conclusion that Baja Ratsnakes and Trans-Pecos Ratsnakes (both were included within Elaphe at the time) were each others' closest living relatives, in other words, that they shared a Most Recent Common Ancestor, more recent than either of those two species do with any other snake species. This conclusion predicted that they would also share a closer number of chromosomes than they would with any other species. In 1985, this was confirmed when it was learned that Baja Ratsnakes have 38 chromosome pairs while Trans-Pecos Rats have 40. All of the other members of their tribe, comprising several genera and many species, have 36.

Getting back to humans and chimpanzees, humans have 23 pairs while chimpanzees have 24. See a pattern here? Not only that, but karyotype morphology should leave fossil-like evidence of its past. Evolution/common descent would predict that you could find that extra 24th chromosome buried somewhere in our karyotype. And it was right. That 24th chromosome,

"I am not going to read the book you wrote (above)."

Wow.

Please tell me you're not serious. Especially since Dusty R. specifically discusses those "who stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes..."

Readers of your blog will learn more about evolution from reading Dusty R.'s one comment than they will from reading the rest of your entire blog. It's a good summary of the evidence behind evolution (including "macro-evolution").

“the world is still waiting for the crucial experiment showing beyond a reasonable doubt one life form evolving into another life form”


Oh, I could show you several lab experiments and field experiments showing exactly what you “require” to be a believer — organisms turning into other species, being observed in real time. But...you would have to read it. :) (And I really think you would just ignore them, if we showed you example after example.)

But, I think every basic science text book tells us that no science should ever depend on a single experiment. It is multiple lines of evidence and MANY experiments from MANY different fields that all start to converge on a common theme that allows us to safely know we are on to something real.

And no experiment proves anything. It can only disprove. When we say that evolution (or gravity or cell theory, etc) is true, we mean there is so much evidence pointing to its veracity that it would be perverse (or demonstrative of our ignorance of the evidence?) to claim otherwise. No science is absolute truth.

Consider this quote from a popular science book (that happens to be written by the former dean of undergraduate education at BYU):

"The differences are analogous to the signal-to-noise problem in broadcast television and radio. Before the days of cable and satellite television, people used either a small "rabbit-ears" antenna mounted on a television set or a large antenna on the roof. Random fluctuations in broadcast television signals are common, so reception rises and falls. A small antenna captures only a small part of the overall signal, so random fluctuations can readily cause the signal to fade in and out. The larger rooftop antenna captures a larger proportion of the signal. When the random fluctuations are averaged out, the signal is more consistent with less variation.

Because random variation and the laws of probability govern inheritance of DNA, we expect to see some random fluctuations, like the television noise, in DNA comparisons. **A single isolated study is not always representative of an overall pattern.** Although most studies may support a particular pattern, a few studies here and there might seem to contradict it because of the noise. Others might oversupport the real pattern and suggest a closer relationship than what actually exists. In other words, the noise varies in both directions.

However, when very large amounts of DNA sequence are compared, the random variations due to the noise are averaged out and the signal becomes much more apparent. For this reason, large studies on a genomic scale, which became available only recently, are much better indicators of evolutionary relationships than isolated small studies."

from Daniel J. Fairbanks. Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA (p. 8). Kindle Edition.

If we were to regard evolution science as something we only accept by faith (which I think is ok — again, no science is provable, only disprovable), then we must also regard detective work, forensic science, astronomy, geology, and history as fields of study that are only accepted by faith, since they depend on indirect observation and clue work, just like much of evolution. Yet, these are still valid scientific fields, are they not? (Well, with the exception of history, they’re all scientific fields.)

life form |ECOL| The form characteristically taken by a plant at maturity. {'līf ,form}

— from McGraw-Hill (2003). Dictionary of Bioscience (Mcgraw Hill Dictionary of Bioscience) (Kindle Locations 25479-25480). McGraw-Hill Professional. Kindle Edition.

I’m not sure your version of 'life form' is a scientific term (other than above)? It’s very vague. You need to give me an actual scientific term designating a taxonomic rank. “Life form” isn’t a recognized taxonomic rank. Above is the only definition of “life form” I can find in a biological dictionary. We need to agree on an actual taxonomic rank before I can show you examples; for example, one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

Better yet, I’ll copy and paste them here; these would be your choices as outlined in biology texts:

*kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species

Well, I can only assume you meant papers of observed macroevolution, since that was the only thing I referred to above. Here’s a fresh one hot off the press of evolution happening at or above species level aka macroevolution:

In this paper, there are three examples of macroevolution occurring now right under our very nose in a single ecotone (two dramatic habitats abutting). Of particular interest to me is the data RE mate choice and reproductive isolation, all the earmarks of what you’d expect to see in the stages of macroevolution. Rosenblum, E.B., L.J. Harmon. 2011. "Same same but different": Replicated ecological speciation at White Sands. Evolution 65(4):946-960. http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/papers/Rosenblum_Evolution_2011.pdf

Isn’t it silly the notion that I should have to provide you with sources? Just pick up a copy of the monthly journal Evolution and read it. I’ve noted most evolution “skeptics” aren’t qualified to be skeptics at all, because they don’t even read original papers. I doubt most of them even know that there are many journals dedicated to publishing observed evolution such as Evolution, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Molecular Ecology, Journal of Biogeography, Ecography, and others.

Let me know if you “need” me to copy and paste any of the lab examples such as Drosophila and bacteria showing macroevolution in the lab. LOL

<<If you like, give me one link to a peer-reviewed published aritcle and I will read.>>

Well, it’s been a couple of weeks.