• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:
Yes, that's a problem the theory in question has. It mostly predicts randomness will occur at some point because mutation and the environment are likely unpredictable.

It's power of predictability is both limited and at times unimpressive.
Unless of course you care about the color of a moth's wings and have a practical need for that information.
(I'd imagine moth collectors would be jazzed about such predictions)

It's not my test. it's science's definition of "theory"
(Laughing). Probably the most significant and impactful theory in history, the basis of virtually all modern science, one with an enormous impact on modern thought, giving us a whole new perspective on life and providing us with possible answers to where we come from, is unimpressive to you (at times) because it can't predict future evolutionary paths? Good Lord.

I would say you are tripping yourself up in overly broad definitions. Cosmologists can make very precise predictions related to the motions of planets and stars. But as the definitions I provided suggest, evolutionary theory attempts to explain what has happened in the past. And though you fall back on some general definition of a scientific theory, can you point to any legitimate criticism of evolution's lack of predictability?

In your opinion, does the theory of Pangea also suffer from lack of future predictability?
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

Probably the most significant and impactful theory in history, the basis of virtually all modern science, one with an enormous impact on modern thought, giving us a whole new perspective on life and providing us with possible answers to where we come from,
yes - I agree that it's descriptive capabilities on the diversity of life are substantial.

As to your claim that it answers 'where we come from' well, that's laughably unsubstantiated.
Evolution is a theory regarding how life progressed, not how it originated.
Let's not try to sneak that baseless statement in through the back door.

You're aware TOE is not a theory about origins, right?
That's a different theory, or rather, hypothesis.

Cosmologists can make very precise predictions related to the motions of planets and stars. But as the definitions I provided suggest, evolutionary theory attempts to explain what has happened in the past. And though you fall back on some general definition of a scientific theory, can you point to any legitimate criticism of evolution's lack of predictability?
Criticize - no. Not my intent here. Try not to be so sensitive about this.

But I do have a question:
What species will inhabit the Brazilian rain forest 500 years from now?
Will any of the predicted species be detrimental to the environment?
What math will be used to make the prediction?

Cosmology, QM, physics can make mathematical precise predictions.
They are reliable and worthy of high praise because of their mathematical elegance and power (among a few other things).
Name one theorem of evolution and its prediction.

Look at this, Geo:
Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

Now look at what you wrote:
If we ran the clock back to six million years ago, there's a good chance that humans wouldn't look like they do today. And quite possible they might not even exist. ...
What Law of nature did Nature "obey" that caused consciousness?
Don't theories articulate specific laws of nature? Isn't the the business of Science - the discovery of laws that are "obeyed"?
Obviously you don't think a particular law would be obeyed again if the clock were ran back several million years.

You didn't answer my questions that I outlined for you.
And you certainly are avoiding many of them completely.
At the very least pretend you're addressing at least a few of them.
Last edited by ant on Tue May 26, 2015 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

One more thing. I was surprised at the total inaccuracy of this statement by you:
In fact, if you place a few critters on an island, you can predict that that they will get bigger over thousands of years.
That was and still is patently false.
I'm surprised because this is your arena here - the doctrine of evolution.

"critters" have both increased and decreased their size within isolated environments.
The Hobbit's size was a total surprise. it made sense, but was not something that was predictable.

Gigantism and dwarfism of isolated critters is not predictable.
Are you going to insist that it is?
PROVE IT.
(good luck)
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

Short term predictions can be made, antibiotic resistance based on how prevalent an infectious disease is, and how much variety there is in the effective arsenal of medicines. Small ocean-dwelling organisms are predicted to adapt to a more acidic ocean. Some short term predictions come true, some don't.

Like our grasp of the weather, it's not our understanding that prevents accurate predictions. It's the complexity of the systems. We understand weather quite well, but to model the entire system is not in our reach. We can describe all the factors that gave rise to perfect storms after they happen, but predicting them is different.

This doesn't mean our understanding of evolution or the weather is bad, as ant says. But we do have a ways to go before our computers reach the required processing power to encompass enough of the systems for accurate modeling.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

I guess the question isn't whether or not the TOE can generate predictions(it can), but what the limitations are due to the random nature of the process. This is known as contingency vs necessity.

Still, like the weather, some predictions are possible.

Darwin, for example, predicted a specific long nosed insect or animal must exist because he spotted a uniquely shaped flower. The flower would require a long beak or whatever to be pollinated. An animal that matched his description was found pollinating one of those flowers after his death. He also predicted a phylogenic tree, which every species found has fit into since his prediction. These are predictions that don't rest on contingency.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Short term predictions can be made, antibiotic resistance based on how prevalent an infectious disease is, and how much variety there is in the effective arsenal of medicines. Small ocean-dwelling organisms are predicted to adapt to a more acidic ocean. Some short term predictions come true, some don't.

Like our grasp of the weather, it's not our understanding that prevents accurate predictions. It's the complexity of the systems. We understand weather quite well, but to model the entire system is not in our reach. We can describe all the factors that gave rise to perfect storms after they happen, but predicting them is different.

This doesn't mean our understanding of evolution or the weather is bad, as ant says. But we do have a ways to go before our computers reach the required processing power to encompass enough of the systems for accurate modeling.

Hi, Interbane;

Thanks for simply mischaracterizing my position instead of merely being condescending. I appreciate it.

I don't think TOE is bad theory. I simply think it isn't as robust as other theories that have stronger PREdictive power. In certain aspects, TOE is incomplete. I guess because atheists are so very religious about TOE it's sort of the equivalent of someone telling them their God is absent, or impotent in telling ways.

Looking at flowers and conjecturing that an insect or animal must be around somewhere that has a snout shaped to benefit from its nutrients is not what I'd call a "WOW" moment. Quantum mechanics and physics are remarkably predictive in their descriptions/predictions of movement. Math (the language of nature) is what they're based on.

I think TOE is magnificently descriptive. But it's predictive power falls short in certain instances as I've pointed out, and as a theory, it points to no specific Law of Nature that is "obeyed."
TOE can point to no law that would predict with accuracy if we wound the clock back we'd all be here again.
It's anybody GUESS at that point.
If we did wind the clock back and we all found ourselves here on BT again it'd be like MAGIC!

Evolution is like the theory/law of erosion (according to Geo) - you never know where the river will run through.


I know this is a sensitive subject, so I'm sorry if I upset anyone.
Religion and politics never fails to generate heat. :)
Last edited by ant on Wed May 27, 2015 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

Look at this article. I haven't finished it yet, as it is quite lengthy:

http://aeon.co/magazine/science/evoluti ... rfly-wing/

I ran into this in the article:
Over the decades, a mountain of support has emerged [divergence between groups in close proximity]. In Southern California, there are two species of stick insect that live just metres from each other but look distinct, each having adapted to a different type of bush. In Connecticut, groups of salamanders living 100 metres apart behave and eat differently. Plantain plants adapted to better fend off fungi than their neighbours can be separated by just 10 metres. The list goes on.

In the oceans, scientists have long viewed species as part of a practically boundary-free single population – a giant soup of the larval forms of species travelling for weeks on ocean currents, creating strong and widely distributed gene flow. Nonetheless, there are many examples of adapted groups living just 50 metres apart. A recent review paper found no fewer than 59 studies documenting evolutionary adaptation where marine biologists had long thought they would find none. ‘This historical idea that local adaptation doesn’t occur in marine systems has fallen away,’ says Eric Sanford, a marine biologist at the University of California, Davis. ‘Now there’s growing interest in understanding when and where it might occur in marine species.’
Only in the past few decades have biologists come to understand that evolutionary divergence within a population can arise quickly, over a very short span of time. Wingless insects and small amphibians living in your backyard might be diverging right now – looking a little different, behaving a bit differently, or otherwise taking the first shaky steps toward becoming a new species, separate from the group down the block. Right there, as you enjoy a cocktail and watch the sun go down, evolution cracks its whip over the creatures and plants in your yard.

One thing I take from the above: little chance at predictability when local evolution is remarkably rapid.
And it has just been recently discovered that it can be this rapid and divergence between species can have a hair's width of spacing geographically.

As I said before; TOE is an incomplete theory (not "bad"). its PREdictive power is quite modest.
If we dare compare it to theories generated by, say, QM, it falls short because of the countless variables involved.

(and it doesn't tell us how "life started" - not even close)

EDITED

‘Evolution at small spatial scales has not been a focus,’ says Richardson, ‘and, I would argue, has even been avoided to a large degree in order to ensure that you find evolutionary divergence that you expect to happen.’
Last edited by ant on Wed May 27, 2015 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:Thanks for simply mischaracterizing my position instead of merely being condescending. I appreciate it.
How is it mischaracterizing if I used the same word you used? Perhaps the issue is that you didn't use the right word, an honest mistake.
ant wrote:Quantum mechanics and physics are remarkably predictive in their descriptions/predictions of movement. Math (the language of nature) is what they're based on.
The mechanisms in these fields are also not contingent. Apples to oranges.
ant wrote:But it's predictive power falls short in certain instances as I've pointed out, and as a theory, it points to no specific Law of Nature that is "obeyed."
What goal does the predictive power fall short of? If the goal is that we want evolution to offer the same strong predictions as physics, then our goal is flawed. Because one theory consists of contingent events, and the other consists of necessary events. If the goal is that we want evolution to predict what animals will evolve in ten years, then you're right. But that isn't a weakness, any more than the inability to predict rain or shine on a specific day in ten years is a weakness in our understanding of weather.

Yet even if it's not a weakness, it's an area to improve. To improve, we need computers powerful enough to model contingent systems. Even then, mutations come from such random sources that it will be nearly impossible short of modelling every particle in the entire solar system(radiation from the sun causes mutations).

We also have a lot to learn regarding the mechanisms. We may know a great deal, but the mechanisms that gave rise to all life on Earth are of course ungodly complex.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

ant wrote:One more thing. I was surprised at the total inaccuracy of this statement by you:
In fact, if you place a few critters on an island, you can predict that that they will get bigger over thousands of years.
That was and still is patently false.
I'm surprised because this is your arena here - the doctrine of evolution.

"critters" have both increased and decreased their size within isolated environments.
The Hobbit's size was a total surprise. it made sense, but was not something that was predictable.

Gigantism and dwarfism of isolated critters is not predictable.
Are you going to insist that it is?
PROVE IT.
(good luck)
I should have my head examined for putting my toes in these waters again, but here goes.

I was tossing out a few examples of what I see (as a layperson) as predictive events in evolution. Just shooting from the hip as it were. I recalled gigantism and so I mentioned it.

I could easily amend my original statement and say something like this: over time animal species that are geographically isolated will tend to drift apart genetically. And, yes, we have gigantism and dwarfism (thanks for that, Ant) that serve as pretty good examples. Hardly a scientific hypothesis, I know. But you can hardly argue with the fact that animal species on islands tend to evolve to be larger (or smaller) than their mainland counterparts., and that this is predictable. I wouldn't think that leaving out dwarfism really changes my basic point.

Here's an article by the National Center for Science Education that addresses predictability in evolution in response to anti-evolutionary (let's face it, Creationist) propaganda that insists evolutionary theory lacks predictive power.

An excerpt:

"They still cite Karl Popper's early suggestion that evolutionary theory is untestable because it cannot be used to make predictions, despite the fact that this view has been rejected by philosophers of science and that Popper himself unequivocally reversed this opinion."

The article also features the eusociality of the naked mole rat which was predicted by American biologist, Richard Alexander, in the 1970s.

Another excerpt:

"Richard D Alexander has made a similarly striking prediction based on first principles of the evolution of social behavior. Although common in social insects, eusociality—the social system with a queen and sterile workers—was unknown in any other taxa. Under the appropriate set of conditions, Alexander predicted, evolution ought to produce a eusocial vertebrate, even though eusociality in the naked mole-rat (or any other vertebrate) was unknown at the time."

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-p ... usociality

Also, here's a summary of the work by Robert MacArthur and E. O. Wilson which makes simple, testable predictions (mathematically) related to the diversity of species on islands of different sizes and distances from mainland.

http://www.biogeography.org/html/fb/FBv ... iantis.pdf

Interesting stuff to be sure!
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Assuming evolution is factual, what do you think is the next step in our evolution?

Unread post

is this what you're talking about?

[Evolution] is descriptive more than it is predictive. Good theories are predictive and based on mathematics.
Good god, man. Seriously, guys? Most of what's being reacted to here is what I said above.

Good theories are predictive and mathematically precise.
It doesn't follow that because I highlighted strong characteristics of good scientific theories TOE must be completely bad.
And I've clarified that already.

As I said before; one thing about TOE is that it is very descriptive and good at retrodiction.
What distinguishes it from QM and physics is that it's not dominantly mathematically based, or as predictive.


I suspect why all this hyper sensitivity is because of the unconscious emotional forces at work:
TOE is the silver bullet that killed God.

TOE was never meant to "kill God"
Darwin certainly didn't feel that way. Read about it.

But that's what conversations like this always fall back too (WIZARD was right): evolution proves a metaphysical hypothesis is false (my words, not his).


that is dumb-dumb thinking.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”