• In total there are 29 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 28 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 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
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

I wanted to clarify the above first because I felt it was important.

You might be surprised, but I actually enjoy all your comments about topics like this.
They are challenging and informative.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that's opined here, but that should not be surprising.

Gosh, man. Let's get to the meat of the discussion. Stop with all the "you said it was a bad theory!"
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

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.
Just really quick:

Is that actually a prediction or an unfalsifiable "just so" story?

Example:

John: I said species X would get smaller in that particular isolated environment.

Bobby: But species x actually increased in size!

Response:

John (smirking) Yeah, but before that I said a species in an isolated environment can either increase or decrease in size.
So, I was right after all.



That doesn't seem like a great prediction.


sorry: quick edits
Last edited by ant on Wed May 27, 2015 6:27 pm, edited 3 times 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:Good theories are predictive and mathematically precise.
Then no theory concerning contingent phenomena can ever be good?
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

contingent phenomena
Define that
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: 2198 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:
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.
Just really quick:

Is that actually a prediction or an unfalsifiable "just so" story?

Example:

John: I said species X would get smaller in that particular isolated environment.

Bobby: But species x actually increased in size!

Response:

John (smirking) Yeah, but before that I said a species in an isolated environment can either increase or decrease in size.
So, I was right after all.



That doesn't seem like a great prediction.


sorry: quick edits
This kind of prediction—what will species X look like in x number of years—is ultimately pointless and obviously not illustrative of actual testable hypotheses in the field of evolution. I only made it up to make a point. You are putting arbitrary obstacles in front of yourself because you are uncomfortable with evolution. In truth your mind is already made up.

The article I linked to earlier discusses direct and indirect methods of testing across multiple scientific disciplines. Your general argument is that evolution is limited by lack of predictive power, but the article goes far to contradict that point. Richard Alexander's prediction of eusociality is compared to a prediction by astronomers in 1845 of another planet in our solar system, which turned out to be Neptune. I really recommend reading the article.

Also, you had criticized my omission of dwarfism which really seemed beside the point. But island populations make fantastic laboratories for evolutionary scientists and offer opportunities to predict patterns. So the work by MacArthur and Wilson seems relevant (if not rather complex).

Here's an overview:

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

In other words, the information is out there if you truly wanted to learn more.
-Geo
Question everything
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:Define that
Something depending on randomness or chance. The weather is an example. While little more than physics, Earths weather is such a vast complex system so heavily dependent on randomness and chance that we can't make predictions, no matter how well we understand it. We can forecast a few days into the future, but a prediction ten years in advance is currently impossible.

To make it more clear - we could understand absolutely everything about weather, yet still not make predictions of the sort you desire. It's a different order of phenomena from the necessary kind that you're making comparisons to, such as chemistry or electromagnetism.
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

Geo;

Your example about predictions of gigantism or dwarfism in isolated environments has no experimental evidence that I am aware of. In my example regarding the Hobbit, dwarfism was not predicted. Quite frankly, the discovery was an astounding surprise. Dwarfism was hypothesized not theorized. It was one of several hypothesis, if memory serves.
If gigantism and dwarfism in isolated environments can be predicted, please provide a link for us all to evidence it.

(Please forgive all these typos)

I am aware of Kark Poopers recantation, Geo. It was primarily about falsification, which is not my primary point here. It was however worth mentioning in the context of your example (either gigantism or dwarfism is oredictable). Quite frankly, only the fossil record can confirm what isolated species grew or shrunk IN THE PAST. Again, prove that current evolutionary science can predict the phenomena we're discussing.

Here is what Popper said about this:

"The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural program." Wiki

Popper said much more about evolution. But notice that he opined that it was not universally true.
Remember, he was opining in the context of the science of his time. I am neither using Popper's thoughts to advance creatiinsim, nor am I talking strictly about falsification.

Geo, here's your link. It's to a website tbat promotes climate change and evolution.
The article it cites is admittedly incomplete. Ive looked for the actual publication on google scholar but can not find it yet. But look at what ive pasted from it;

"Population geneticists make predictions and test hypotheses about the mode of evolution. In population cages, petri dishes or growth media, population geneticists test hypotheses about evolutionary change in controlled populations (for example Carson and others 1994; Goodnight and Stevens 1997; Templeton 1996). In wild populations, population geneticists look at gene frequencies within species or populations in order to test hypotheses about relatively recent evolutionary events (for example Crandall and Templeton 1993; Routman and Templeton 1994; Templeton and others 1993)"

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

Your source is biased and and posted an incomplete version (admittedly )
Nevertheless is was enough:

The predictions alleged were based on experimental CONTROLLED populations.
In WILD populations, hypotheses tested events that had already occured.

Controlled populations vs wild populations!!
Big difference, my friend.

(From my smart phone- sorry)
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

Geo wrote:

"Richard Alexander's prediction of eusociality is compared to a prediction by astronomers in 1845 of another planet in our solar system, which turned out to be Neptune. I really recommend reading the article."

The article regarding eusociality is dated in 1997.

Here is a more recent article by Nature mag (2010)

"Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others, underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans. For the past four decades kin selection theory, based on the concept of inclusive fitness, has been the major theoretical attempt to explain the evolution of eusociality. Here we show the limitations of this approach. We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09205.html

Obviously your source is over dramatizing what the Nature mag publication clearly indicates is an area of science that has multiple competting HYPOTHESES to explain this thing called Eusociality.
If they are auxiliary hypotheses of Eusociality then they are likely to impact Eusociality in ways unknown.
Social behavior evolution theory is difficult to test. That is why there are still competting hypotheses to this day.

Or am i misunderstanding what youve brought to the table here?
Is Eusociality a theory or a hypothesis?
It certainly seems to be a hypothesis (one of apparently several) from reading the Nature mag intro.

Arent you defending the THEORY of evolution?
Last edited by ant on Thu May 28, 2015 12:30 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

Interbane wrote:

"To make it more clear - we could understand absolutely everything about weather, yet still not make predictions of the sort you desire. It's a different order of phenomena from the necessary kind that you're making comparisons to, such as chemistry or electromagnetism."

We COULD but we DO NOT understand everything about climatology.
We could but we do not understand everything about life.
That is tbe reality of our current knowledge.

We do not have a clue how single celled life evolved into conscious life.
That is an enormous leap. Almost unfathomable.

Which is more complex, the weather or the evolution of life?
Which has more known Laws that we can hang our intellectual hats on?
Which has more limits as far as testing is concerned?

So far, the most common law of evolution i hear touted by over zealous darwinists is "the most fit and adaptable species survives"

Ummm.., thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

What is the law that governs the rise of consciousness?
Are we close to discovering it?
How has the theory of evolution advanced our understanding of it?
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

No one is saying we understand everything. My point is that contingent systems are different. Comparing the predictive power of theories about necessary systems to theories about contingent systems is comparing apples to oranges.
ant wrote:We do not have a clue how single celled life evolved into conscious life.
We have many millions of clues, encompassed by the theory of evolution.
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
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”