Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5136734" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, I, as a scientist, do agree with it.See? Not all scientists agree on everything, including science!To my knowledge, through all our breeding and genetics work (directed evolution or otherwise), mankind has not yet created a new species of multicellular organism, nor have we witnessed it happening in nature.&nbsp; All the plants, cows, dogs, cats, and so on that we've created are still genetically compatible with their root stocks.&nbsp; There are indirect supports - one can do directed evolution on things with really fast generation times, and then generalize - but that doesn't actually test if the multi-cellular critters do it in nature.&nbsp; You instead have to build a case that it happens from the fossil record.Nor can we, say, test if dinosaurs were warm blooded by growing one and observing its body temperature relative to the ambient temperature around it.&nbsp; We can only look at the evidence we have (mostly fossilized bones) and find traits similar to those of current warm-blooded creatures, but dissimilar to cold-blooded ones - and maybe stack up enough to make the case.You mention your self that it is indirect - that means you cannot actually set up the situation and watch the results.&nbsp; That's the problem.&nbsp; A particle physicist can develop a hypothesis and a model, and then slam particles against each other and see if what comes out is consistent with the model.&nbsp;&nbsp; The geologist cannot come up with a hypothesis and a model, and then watch a planet go through events on geologic timescales to see if the behavior is consistent with the model.&nbsp; The geologist must look for a chain of indirect evidence, and build the case until it is extremely convincing.Historical science done in this matter works - it some ways it takes a lot more effort to do, and sometimes the practitioners stay stuck until evidence falls into their laps.&nbsp; But often they don't get to decide what evidence they get to use.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5136734, member: 177"] Well, I, as a scientist, do agree with it. See? Not all scientists agree on everything, including science! To my knowledge, through all our breeding and genetics work (directed evolution or otherwise), mankind has not yet created a new species of multicellular organism, nor have we witnessed it happening in nature. All the plants, cows, dogs, cats, and so on that we've created are still genetically compatible with their root stocks. There are indirect supports - one can do directed evolution on things with really fast generation times, and then [i]generalize[/i] - but that doesn't actually test if the multi-cellular critters do it in nature. You instead have to build a case that it happens from the fossil record. Nor can we, say, test if dinosaurs were warm blooded by growing one and observing its body temperature relative to the ambient temperature around it. We can only look at the evidence we have (mostly fossilized bones) and find traits similar to those of current warm-blooded creatures, but dissimilar to cold-blooded ones - and maybe stack up enough to make the case. You mention your self that it is indirect - that means you cannot actually set up the situation and watch the results. That's the problem. A particle physicist can develop a hypothesis and a model, and then slam particles against each other and see if what comes out is consistent with the model. The geologist cannot come up with a hypothesis and a model, and then watch a planet go through events on geologic timescales to see if the behavior is consistent with the model. The geologist must look for a chain of indirect evidence, and build the case until it is extremely convincing. Historical science done in this matter works - it some ways it takes a lot more effort to do, and sometimes the practitioners stay stuck until evidence falls into their laps. But often they don't get to decide what evidence they get to use. [/QUOTE]

Verification