[_ Old Earth _] Is it possible we will witness an ape turn into a human?

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

This is your proposed phenomenon:

The Barbarian wrote:

"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

The Barbarian wrote:

(Scientists' hypothesis to explain the origin of insect wings)
"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

(Scientists' question)
"How did insect wings come to be?"

Crying Rock wrote:

You can’t have a question or hypothesis without a natural phenomenon (an observable event) about which to question, as far as science goes. Philosophy, yes. The reason why is hypotheses about events that have not been observed violates the requirement for observation.

Crying Rock wrote:

The scientific method

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment


“…A phenomenon (from Greek ÆαινÌμενoν, pl. ÆαινÌμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

“…Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

The Barbarian wrote:


Not bad, but you got it backward. The question comes first. Can't have a hypothesis without a question.

Crying Rock wrote/ quoted:

A question about an observable occurrence (natural phenomenon), yes. "...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..." is not an observable occurrence (natural phenomenon), Therefore, according to the scientific method, there is no natural phenomenon to question. Your reasoning breaks down from the beginning.

However, in all fairness, let’s check another source for the definition of the scientific method:

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory.

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html

The Barbarian wrote:

"How did insect wings come to be?"

Crying Rock wrote:

This is a philosophical question, which requires inference versus observation.

Crying Rock wrote:

Inferences = philosophy. Observation = science.

This is rather elementary science.

Indeed.

 

[Barbarian]

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

"How did insect wings come to be?"

2. Making observations of the phenomenon

We note that the wings are anatomically equivalent to gills in primitive insects and annelids.

3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon

Hypothesis: Insect wings are evolved from the gill branch of biramous arthropod appendages.

4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis

a. There should be genetic evidence for this.

b. There should be or have been, intermediates.

c. If the changes are genetic, there should be ways to reverse some of them by knock-out processes.

5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment

a. Examine HOX genes to see if there is any evidence for such evolution.

b. Look at living and fossil arthropods to see if intermediates exist.

c. Do some genetic experimentation to see if any reversals are possible.

6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

a. HOX genes do indeed show a common origin for arthropod gills and insect wings.

b. Numerous intermediate forms are found in nature and in the fossil record.

c. Insect appendages, such as antennae, can be converted to legs by knocking out certain developmental genes.

And there you have it.

 

[GojuBrian]

Ofcourse humans and aes have similarities, but these similarities do not prove we have evolved or are related.

We have similarities because we have the same creator.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ofcourse humans and aes have similarities, but these similarities do not prove we have evolved or are related.

We have similarities because we have the same creator.

Why is there an 'of course' there? Following your logic, humans and sea-cucumbers have the same creator, but the similarities are marginal. Why would this be?

And it's not a question of proof, it's a question of evidence. Are you suggesting God rummaged in his big box of bits and used pretty much the same components for all the great apes? Do you think that the similarities amongst the various species of gulls says anything about their relatedness, for example, or is a Great Black-backed Gull no more closely related to the Herring Gull than it is to a Sparrow?

 

[GojuBrian]

Ofcourse humans and aes have similarities, but these similarities do not prove we have evolved or are related.

We have similarities because we have the same creator.

Why is there an 'of course' there? Following your logic, humans and sea-cucumbers have the same creator, but the similarities are marginal. Why would this be?

Different "kinds", one is not even a critter at all.lol

And it's not a question of proof, it's a question of evidence. Are you suggesting God rummaged in his big box of bits and used pretty much the same components for all the great apes? Do you think that the similarities amongst the various species of gulls says anything about their relatedness, for example, or is a Great Black-backed Gull no more closely related to the Herring Gull than it is to a Sparrow?

I'm suggesting the creator doesn't have a box of bits at all. He has a perfect plan from the beginning to the end. More closely related, yes, but still related nonetheless, it's the same kind. Apes and humans are not of the same kind, nor are they related.

 

[lordkalvan]

Why is there an 'of course' there? Following your logic, humans and sea-cucumbers have the same creator, but the similarities are marginal. Why would this be?

Different "kinds", one is not even a critter at all.lol

I'm glad to see you put kinds in quotation marks as its scientific value is marginal to non-existent. Actually, sea-cucumbers are critters. They're a marine animal, members of the class Holothuroidea.

[quote:oe8nhh2m]And it's not a question of proof, it's a question of evidence. Are you suggesting God rummaged in his big box of bits and used pretty much the same components for all the great apes? Do you think that the similarities amongst the various species of gulls says anything about their relatedness, for example, or is a Great Black-backed Gull no more closely related to the Herring Gull than it is to a Sparrow?

I'm suggesting the creator doesn't have a box of bits at all. He has a perfect plan from the beginning to the end. More closely related, yes, but still related nonetheless, it's the same kind. Apes and humans are not of the same kind, nor are they related. [/quote:oe8nhh2m]
Genetically and in terms of shared traits, the great apes (including humans) are at least as closely related as the various species of gulls. Comparative anatomy is evidence that supports the hypothesis of common ancestry. Consider the indisputable facts that, for example, there is no part of the digestive, immune, lymph, vascular and nervous systems that chimps and humans do not share. Both chimps and humans have three tiny bones in the middle ear, as well as sharing every other bone. The chemicals in the brain are the same as well. There are 13 chromosomes in chimps and humans in which there are no visible differences. If molecular genetics and comparative anatomy can determine the degree of relatedness amongst gulls (or lizards or beetles or whatever), why do you suppose they cannot also determine the degree of relatedness between humans and the other great apes?

 

[GojuBrian]

All evolutionary "Facts" are disputable, obviously.

 

[lordkalvan]

All evolutionary "Facts" are disputable, obviously.

A more particular response would carry greater persuasiveness. What is an evolutionary 'fact'? Which of the evidences for the relatedness of human beings and chimpanzees that I gave you do you regard as open to dispute, and why?

 

[Crying Rock]

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

"How did insect wings come to be?"

We need to hash out what a phenomenon is before we can move onto the other numerous errors you made downstream from step 1. If you fail at step one then the remaining steps are rubbish.


In your statement above, you contend that an insect wing is a phenomenon. I contend that an insect wing is an object versus a phenomenon. Phenomena are dynamic versus static. I contend your question should be based on the alleged phenomenon:

The Barbarian wrote:

"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

Versus an object:

The Barbarian wrote:

"… insect wings..."

Note the first example is dynamic, but unobserved, while the second example is static, though observed. Insect wings flapping are a phenomenon, but you merely claimed that insect wings are phenomenon, and then developed a question based on your false assumption.


Lets look at some definitions:

Phenomenon

- any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

State

-A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state

Process

-A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result: the process of digestion;…

- a systematic series of actions directed to some end

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/process


Phenomenon

- A phenomenon (from Greek ÆαινÌμενoν, pl. ÆαινÌμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence.

New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.)

Occurrence

- a coming or happening; as, the occurrence of a railway collision


http://dictionary.babylon.com/occurrence


Phenomenon

- Physics- An observable event.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phenomenon


Event

- a phenomenon located at a single point in space-time; the fundamental
observational entity in relativity theory

- Something that takes place; an occurrence.

- a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/events



Again, I contend your question should be based on the alleged phenomenon:

The Barbarian wrote:

"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

Versus an object:

The Barbarian wrote:

"… insect wings..."

However, your alleged phenomenon has not been observed and thus does not satisfy the first requirement of the scientific method.

 

[GojuBrian]

All evolutionary "Facts" are disputable, obviously.

A more particular response would carry greater persuasiveness. What is an evolutionary 'fact'? Which of the evidences for the relatedness of human beings and chimpanzees that I gave you do you regard as open to dispute, and why?

You are not here to be persuaded.

 

[lordkalvan]

All evolutionary "Facts" are disputable, obviously.

A more particular response would carry greater persuasiveness. What is an evolutionary 'fact'? Which of the evidences for the relatedness of human beings and chimpanzees that I gave you do you regard as open to dispute, and why?

You are not here to be persuaded.

The persuasiveness referred to the strength of your argument. I am here to engage in discussion on particular subjects that spark my interest.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian points out the first step in the scientific method.
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon

"How did insect
wings come to be?"

We need to hash out what a phenomenon is

I thought you were a scientist? Here you go:

pheâ‹…nomâ‹…eâ‹…non
   /fɪˈnɒməˌnɒn, -nən/
1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomenon

In your statement above, you contend that an insect wing is a phenomenon.

No. I said wings coming to be is a phenomenon.

I contend that an insect wing is an object versus a phenomenon.

But its development is not. Nice try. I read the same creationist prep sites you do.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

We need to hash out what a phenomenon is

Crying Rock wrote:

In your statement above, you contend that an insect wing is a phenomenon.

The Barbarian wrote:

No. I said wings coming to be is a phenomenon.

If so, then it’s not observable, and doesn’t qualify for the first step in the scientific

method, and therefore doesn’t qualify as science:

Crying Rock quoted:

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html



The scientific method

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation


“…A phenomenon (from Greek ÆαινÌμενoν, pl. ÆαινÌμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

Crying Rock wrote:

I contend that an insect wing is an object versus a phenomenon.

The Barbarian wrote:

But its development is not.

Its development, in a macroevolutionary sense, is not an observable phenomenon:

Crying Rock quoted:

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html



The scientific method


The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:

1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the prediction in a controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study, or a field experiment
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation


“…A phenomenon (from Greek ÆαινÌμενoν, pl. ÆαινÌμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence…â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

The Barbarian wrote:

"...wings are formed from the gills of primitive arthropods..."

I rest my case.

 

[Barbarian]

We need to hash out what a phenomenon is

I gave you the dictionary definition. Let's use words the way they are understood.

In your statement above, you contend that an insect wing is a phenomenon.

Barbarian observes:
No. I said wings coming to be is a phenomenon.

If so, then it’s not observable,

It's observable every time a nymph grows into an adult. You aren't going to have any luck trying to win by redefining science.

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

(Why do insect wings come to be?)

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

(Since they are anatomically identical to the gill branches of biramous appendages, they might be evolved from them)

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

(We should see genetic evidence for this transformation, and there should be intermediate stages in fossils and/or living organisms)

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

(Genetic data does indeed show such evidence, and the predicted intermediates exist)

The conclusion is always in inference based on the evidence. In this case, the evidence shows the hypothesis to be correct.

I contend that an insect wing is an object versus a phenomenon.

Barbarian observes:
But its development is not.

Its development, in a macroevolutionary sense, is not an observable phenomenon:

But we are not explaining it's evolutionary development. We are explaining how insects come to have wings. Evolution is the cause, not the phenomenon.

I rest my case.

Better luck, next time.