Another Evolution Question

[Ekstasis]

"Oh no, not another freaking E. thread!!" - let it be known if you feel that way - I really couldn't give a hoot .

Just one question: Is there room for speculation in Evolution Science?

Any experts in the applicable scientific fields who can shed some light.


/Waiting...waiting...someone will say; "what a retarded,silly,stupid thread"

 

[Sodan]

What a retar- wait, what? What do you mean by speculation?

 

[Ekstasis]

What a retar- wait, what? What do you mean by speculation?

Two web definitions:

-guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
-Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

 

[Sodan]

Oh, then I guess so

 

[TJ99]

Depends a bit on what you mean. There is room for speculation, as long as it as pointed out as being such. Passing off speculation as facts, no. Just like in any science.

 

[copacetic]

Two web definitions:

-guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
-Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

REASONING IN SCIENCE
Start with a simple question like why do spiders spin webs. Learning about the scientific method is almost like saying that you are learning how to learn. You see, the scientific method is the way scientists learn and study the world around them. It can be used to study anything from a leaf to a dog to the entire Universe.

The basis of the scientific method is asking questions and then trying to come up with the answers. You could ask, "Why do dogs and cats have hair?" One answer might be that it keeps them warm. BOOM! It's the scientific method in action. (OK, settle down.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Just about everything starts with a question. Usually, scientists come up with questions by looking at the world around them. "Hey look! What's that?" See that squiggly thing at the end of the sentence? A question has been born.

So you've got a scientist. When scientists see something they don't understand they have some huge urge to answer questions and discover new things. It's just one of those scientist personality traits. The trick is that you have to be able to offer some evidence that confirms every answer you give. If you can't test your answer, other scientists can't test it to see if you were right or not.

You must always offer proof for your statements in science. As more questions are asked, scientists work hard and come up with a bunch of answers. Then it is time to organize. One of the cool things about science is that other scientists can learn things from what has already been established. They don't have to go out and test everything again and again. That's what makes science special: it builds on what has been learned before.

This process allows the world to advance, evolve, and grow. All of today's advancements are based on the achievements of scientists who already did great work. Think about it this way: you will never have to show that water (H2O) is made up of one oxygen (O) and two hydrogen (H) atoms. Many scientists before you have confirmed that fact. It will be your job as a new scientist to take that knowledge and use it in your new experiments.

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
Process of Scientific Method Experimental evidence is what makes all of the observations and answers in science valid (truthful or confirmed). The history of evidence and validations show that the original statements were correct and accurate. It sounds like a simple idea, but it is the basis of all science. Statements must be confirmed with loads of evidence. Enough said.

Scientists start with observations and then make a hypothesis (a guess), and then the fun begins. They must then prove their hypothesis with trials and tests that show why their data and results are correct. They must use controls, which are quantitative (based on values and figures, not emotions). Science needs both ideas (the hypothesis) and facts (the quantitative results) to move forward. Scientists can then examine their data and develop newer ideas. This process will lead to more observation and refinement of hypotheses.

THE WHOLE PROCESS
There are different terms used to describe scientific ideas based on the amount of confirmed experimental evidence.

Hypothesis
- a statement that uses a few observations
- an idea based on observations without experimental evidence
Theory
- uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence
- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships
- flexible enough to be modified if new data/evidence introduced
Law
- stands the test of time, often without change
- experimentally confirmed over and over
- can create true predictions for different situations
- has uniformity and is universal

You may also hear about the term "model." A model is a scientific statement that has some experimental validity or is a scientific concept that is only accurate under limited situations. Models do not work or apply under all situations in all environments. They are not universal ideas like a law or theory.

Link

 

[copacetic]

OP, does this answer your question?

 

[h0ll0w]

I think you would need to say yes or no copacetic.

 

[Techne]

Yes, there is room for speculation in any science. New research is based on speculations.

 

[copacetic]

I think you would need to say yes or no copacetic.

The answer is yes, that is perfectly clear from the article I posted.

Although, it's a 'guess' of a very specific type:

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

If the hypothesis cannot be tested, or fails further experimentation, it will be discarded.

So it's not as if scientists are guessing about matters evolutionary, and leaving it at that.

 

[Ekstasis]

I'm specifically referring to evolution science. I've been told many times on this forum that I've no understanding of the ToE.
Therefor, with respect to the argument that all life evolved from a common ancestor (a single cellular organism), how much of it is speculative. How is the scientific method applied in this regard?

 

[copacetic]

In the study of early life on Earth, one name towers above the rest: LUCA. LUCA is not the name of a famous scientist in the field; it is shorthand for Last Universal Common Ancestor, a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved. Amazingly, every living thing we see around us (and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope) is related. As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once.
Answers in the genetic code

Life comes in all shapes and sizes, from us humans to bacteria. So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell? The answer is written in the language of the genetic code (Image A).

The genetic code spells out DNA.

The genetic code is the language in which most genes are written into DNA.
Such genes are recipes for making proteins.
Proteins are what make the cell tick, doing everything from making DNA to digesting the food we eat and extracting the nutrients.
Incredibly, the exact same code is used in humans and bacteria, so a gene from a human being can be put into a bacterium, and the bacterium will make the human protein — this is how insulin is made.

The genetic code is universal for all life.

That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related. All life regenerates itself by producing offspring, and over time small changes in the offspring result in small changes to the protein recipes. But because the recipes are written in the same language (the genetic code), it is possible to compare these recipes (and other genes) to build the equivalent of a family tree.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

There are plenty of articles to be found.

*edit*

As per the article, there is going to be some educated guesswork, obviously, but what else would you expect in trying to piece together a 3 billion year old puzzle?

 

[Ekstasis]

There are plenty of articles to be found.

".....a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved." - Said like it's a fact, when there's no way of proving it.

This assumption is made because of the universal language of genetic code in DNA shared by all life forms?? I would not really expect it to be any other way - them all having DNA as the blueprint I mean.
Just because all life share a common feature being DNA and sometimes almost similar coding does not mean they're all "family". Can you see the HUGE possible mistake here?

All houses share similar features and parts, does this mean they were all build by the same builder?

I cannot help wondering just how much of evolution science is actually proper science. Emphasis on "how much" meaning the remainder being "speculation".

 

[Ekstasis]

There are plenty of articles to be found.

".....a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved." - Said like it's a fact, when there's no way of proving it.

This assumption is made because of the universal language of genetic code in DNA shared by all life forms?? I would not really expect it to be any other way - them all having DNA as the blueprint I mean.
Just because all life share a common feature being DNA and sometimes almost similar coding does not mean they're all "family".

All houses share similar features and parts, does this mean they were all build by the same builder?

I cannot help wondering just how much of evolution science is actually proper science. Emphasis on "how much" meaning the remainder being "speculation".

 

[Ekstasis]

As per the article, there is going to be some educated guesswork, obviously, but what else would you expect in trying to piece together a 3 billion year old puzzle?

Exactly! So how do you scientifically test (as in the scientific method) a 3 billion yr old puzzle?

 

[porchrat]

Exactly! So how do you scientifically test (as in the scientific method) a 3 billion yr old puzzle?

By looking for evidence that doesn't fit your puzzle.

Remember everything needs to be falsifiable. Surely we have covered this before Ekstasis?

 

[Ekstasis]

Sorry, my puzzle??

 

[RanzB]

What the hell is wrong with these people?

I thought your Christian morals frown on dishonesty? If so, then stop trying to disprove/disparage evolution under the pretence of asking a question which you are NEVER going to accept the answer to.

 

[copacetic]

".....a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved." - Said like it's a fact, when there's no way of proving it.

This assumption is made because of the universal language of genetic code in DNA shared by all life forms?? I would not really expect it to be any other way - them all having DNA as the blueprint I mean.
Just because all life share a common feature being DNA and sometimes almost similar coding does not mean they're all "family".

All houses share similar features and parts, does this mean they were all build by the same builder?

I cannot help wondering just how much of evolution science is actually proper science. Emphasis on "how much" meaning the remainder being "speculation".

A few minutes on the internet led me to literally thousands of articles delving into what is obviously a fairly complex issue.

I really could not be arsed to discuss it with you, because your objective here is clearly to poke holes, rather than try to educate yourself. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I am officially tired of this type of attitude, more often than not from people who revolve their entire lives around one book, based on nothing but faith. Yet, you still have the temerity to suggest parts of evolution are not 'proper science, without even, it seems, having an understanding of how the basic scientific method works.

To demand that there should be no gaps in knowledge, when trying to figure out a mystery that took place billions of years ago, is sublimely absurd. What you should do, is look at the evidence that we currently have, and then decide on the weight of that evidence what is most likely. There is much information on this subject, but I suspect you have not really read and digested even one well written article on the subject?

What could make me cry tears of frustration about all this, and I'm being serious here, is that if you applied the same importance towards evidence with regards to the bible and it's veracity, you'd reject it out of hand. There is no evidence, at all, anywhere outside the bible, for the miraculous happenings therein. Yet you take this as fact, but yet are so monumentally sceptical when it comes to matters scientific, you end up rejecting notions for which there is far more evidence than, for example, the virgin birth.

I'm sorry, I hope this did not come across as rude, this was not the intention, I'm just trying to illustrate how frustrating it is sometimes having to deal with this type of attitude.

 

[porchrat]

Sorry, my puzzle??

By "your" I'm of course referring to the person performing the investigation. I should have used "one's" instead. Apologies for any ambiguity.

Having said that it is still "your" puzzle too Ekstasis. Look at how you constantly think about it.

My point still stands though. You test something by looking for evidence you know will demonstrate that it is false. This is why all scientific theories must be falsifiable. We have discussed this before mate.