Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A friend and I are studying biology at college. One of our modules this year is called Perceptions of Science - it is what the name implies. For our assignment, we are meant to choose a scientific topic, such as a theory, and evaluate the theory itself, the evidence, the perception (what the average, non-scientific person thinks of the topic), and the same for the popular counter-argument.

I'm doing evolution. As for my friend, we're considering perpetual motion, a theory which I did not even know existed until last year (as in, I didn't know that people believed in it). What I want to know is; what's the argument for perpetual motion? Creationism has God to 'back up' its claims - and please, I don't want this to turn into an evolution vs creationism thread, but frankly I find the entire concept of creationism to be absurd, so you know where I stand.

As for perpetual motion... there's nothing at all to back it up. Not even straw men. So, how can people believe in it so strongly? What do they back up their ridiculous ignorance of thermodynamics with? It seems that people only support it 'just because'!

Disclaimer: I do not believe in perpetual motion, don't be silly.

What is the merit to this assignment? What is its value to your future career?

For that matter, what is your proof that there *are* people who believe in perpetual motion? I find it difficult to believe anyone of serious intelligence would put forward such an idea.

Someone I know once talked about trying to get a perpetual motion machine to work. I was too stunned to get into it with him. Of course, the same guy also invited me to a Tea Party rally.

Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Perpetual motion ideas result from people not understanding basic physics. Such devices break the laws of thermodynamics; you can't totally conserve energy, and changes of energy are not perfect and absolute. It's slightly different to creationists who have an actual belief they insist is more correct than established facts, but frequently attempting to justify their belief displays an appalling grasp of science all the same.

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

That statement is an oxymoron.

There is no theory of perpetual motion.

There is a concept, and perhaps even a few hypotheses, but there are no theories.

"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.

Evolution is the bedrock concept underlying the biological sciences. There's more evidence for it than there is for the Theory of Gravity. It's about the most powerful and documented scientific theory there is.

I once tried to do a science fair project on various designs for perpetual motion/why they didn't work.

The only viable one (not perpetual) was based on energy provided by the Earth in its rotation.

It involved a pendulum (with its mass being a magnet) being suspended from a ceiling, but capable of free movement (it doesn't rotate with the Earth/ceiling, it just sits there, never moving in any way).

Around the pendulum, was a series of wire coils, which would rotate with the Earth.

Thus, gradually, electrical energy would be produced through the Earth's rotation.

Of course, it was an INCREDIBLY low amount of energy and many would be needed to power a lightbulb, but it was possible

Dr.what, that's pretty cool. Now if only we had several million of those set up in an array! Think of the ridiculous amount of space that would require

Evolution? I won't even get into that. There's nothing to argue about evolution anymore. It just makes sense.

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Hell, the conservative creationnist nightmare ; Climate changes helping to prove evolution.

Whenever I'm challenged by a creationist about Evolution just being a theory, I point out that Gravity also is a theory, and to prove his faith he should jump off a cliff.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?

I'm really not the best one to defend the thesis. But I remember the change had occured over 4 years, and had resulted in one additionnal reproduction cycle a year (I think it was 2 then 3). There was genetical evidence provided with it, the researchers had been taking material for a few years, and noticed a change in the genetical makeup of the population.

 Testify wrote:
What is the merit to this assignment? What is its value to your future career?

For that matter, what is your proof that there *are* people who believe in perpetual motion? I find it difficult to believe anyone of serious intelligence would put forward such an idea.

It's an assignment. I have to complete it, as part of my course. I also have to do other non-biology things as an essential part of my course, sadly. As for "anyone with serious intelligence"; I never said that they were intelligent, but they exist. As to the proof of their existence I have none; I've simply heard that it's far more popular than it should be.

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is no theory of perpetual motion.

There is a concept, and perhaps even a few hypotheses, but there are no theories.

"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.

I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!

@Dr.What: That sounds pretty cool.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Perpetual motion ideas result from people not understanding basic physics. Such devices break the laws of thermodynamics; you can't totally conserve energy, and changes of energy are not perfect and absolute. It's slightly different to creationists who have an actual belief they insist is more correct than established facts, but frequently attempting to justify their belief displays an appalling grasp of science all the same.

This is what I want to see! I want to see an attempt made by perpetual motion supporters to justify their belief through an appalling grasp of science. I'm sure it'd be hilarious.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:

Evolution? I won't even get into that. There's nothing to argue about evolution anymore. It just makes sense.

Wuv you. <3 That's why my assignment will be particularly fun. Especially given the creationists in my class!

EDIT: Oh yeah; people! I said no evolution debate! But okay, have at it.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

This is what I want to see! I want to see an attempt made by perpetual motion supporters to justify their belief through an appalling grasp of science. I'm sure it'd be hilarious.

Gonna play Devil's Advocate here: Perpetual motion is possible. How? Deus vult!

Frozen Ocean wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
"Theory" means something entirely different in the scientific community than it does in common language. A lack of understanding of this distinction is one of the foundations of Intelligent Design, wherein its proponents -who are not part of the scientific community- do not understand that a scientific theory is not a shaky guess about how things work; it is a median point between a hypothesis and a law. That's why the Intelligent Design people always tout the idea that "evolution is just a theory": because their grasp of science is so poor that they do not even understand what it means to be a theory.

I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!

No.

Just, NO.

Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.

And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.

 azazel the cat wrote:

And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.

It's still a theory, albeit an unproven one.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?

Exactly.

With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.

 azazel the cat wrote:

I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!

No.

Just, NO.

Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.

And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.

This. Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Quick aside though, what's Russell's Teapot?

Bran Dawri wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

I know, but in light of political correctness, I'm forced to take Intelligent Design seriously as a 'theory'. I see no difference between it or perpetual motion!

No.

Just, NO.

Political correctness and factual science are mutually exclusive. You no more have to take Intelligent Design seriously due to political correctness than you do the hypothesis that prayer will stop a bullet; and even suggesting that you should is an insult to the scientific community.

And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.

This. Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Quick aside though, what's Russell's Teapot?

I'm with Az and Bran with this...

Crack pot ideas and especially PC has no place in Science... all it does is distort it.

But it does! It's why the whole prospect of intelligent design is still a 'debate' and evolution is still 'a theory'. It's unfortunate, but enough people abuse the term to give their argument credence. Not as in, 'it makes sense'. Just that we have to entertain the poor misguided fools. :'c

As for evolution - it is proven. Artificial selective breeding to produce different variations on an animal is a proven fact, for example. What, Scottish Folds used to scamper derpily in the wild? They were bred by humans, by creating artificial conditions and selection. Same as the Belgian Blue - a breed of cow. Over a very long time, farmers have been selecting only the bulkiest stock to breed, and this has led to very bulky cows.



What, this just so happened to occur? This breed materialised from nowhere, meanwhile the artificial selection procedures were totally useless?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
But it does! It's why the whole prospect of intelligent design is still a 'debate' and evolution is still 'a theory'.

No. They are both theories, with different amounts of evidence to support either.

 Phototoxin wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?

Exactly.

With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.

The proof of evolution lies in the fact that the general makeup of an entire population shifted to adapt to different conditions. It doesn't matter that the characteristics were already in some part of the population (logically, it's a requirement), what matters is that the entire population a few generations later expressed those traits.

 Phototoxin wrote:
I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.

So, basically, you struggle with the concept of spontaneity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
So, how can people believe in it so strongly?

Because its a seductive idea, much like cold fusion. In fact its basically the layman's version of cold fusion.

 Testify wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
But it does! It's why the whole prospect of intelligent design is still a 'debate' and evolution is still 'a theory'.

No. They are both theories, with different amounts of evidence to support either.

Only if you misuse the word "theory".

In a colloquial sense, Intelligent Design MIGHT qualify as a theory, as in someone out there might think "maybe it happened this way". I say they might think that, because it's been demonstrated that in practice, in the real world, Intelligent Design is just a code phrase to mean creationism without saying the word "creationism". Anyway, you could possibly say that Intelligent Design meets the colloquial definition of a theory. But in the colloquial sense, evolution isn't a theory, any more than gravity is. They're both facts of life, supported by every experiment and test we've been able to apply to them.

In the scientific sense, Evolution is a Theory, which is defined as a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". By the scientific definition, Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as a theory, because it has no substatiation and no experimental or observational data supporting it. ID is, at best, a hypothesis. But in reality, even that is questionable, as there have been no real studies or tests put forward to be used on it. So it doesn't even meet the standards of a scientific hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A 'scientific theory' should be a model designed to fit established facts, so as more facts emerge the theory of evolution may have to be altered. Some subjects have more than one theory proposed, as the set of facts could suggest either. However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.

 Phototoxin wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
Evolution - a solid theory but circumstantial evidence at best.

Incorrect, there are studies that validate the principles of evolution by direct evidence, on a fairly short (read, observable) period. The most recent one was about squirrels in Alaska who'se reproduction cycle shortened noticeably because of the climate changes.

Over a relatively small number of generations? How do you know it's not largely an environmental effect upon an already established genetic background?

Exactly.

With epigenetics coming into its own now, what has been thought of as 'evolution' might not be so. I struggle with the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures, to single cells to fishthings, to mammals to humans.

Simply, four years in higher organisms doesn't seem enough time... it appears to demonstrate the power of selection, but you can see that in many examples of species from a shared ancestor. It could be that the environment is the sole cause and that genetic background is largely unchanged, or that traits previously in the population are being selected for, and that nothing 'new' has been generated in the population, merely their relative frequencies. A previous rare gene is now in the majority. A demonstration of evolution would best be shown by an entirely new trait appearing, most likely through random mutation, then that trait becoming widespread in the population, and then becoming fixed in the population. But all that takes a long time... yet when you demonstrate similar changes in bacteria over a short period of time (but with many generations) it is seized upon by creationists as a reason to dismiss it. Though that isn't logical, the creationists refuse to accept evidence for evolution over millions of years because scientists 'can't see the changes occurring in front of them', yet when you have bacterial evolution of resistance they dismiss it because it's too fast and they are too simple an organism. They always seem to have an excuse...

Four years in higher organisms isn't likely enough to show that you have more than a piece of genetic variation that is being selected for more frequently in very recent history. Even if you claim that it is 'new' in the population, your data stands upon the sample size from the population, so obviously rare genes coming to the forefront could seem to appear from nowhere. I'm not saying that is what the academic work described shows, but it's an obvious problem.

Epigenetics is another bag entirely and could explain why you are seeing new traits appearing and new genetic code apparently being transcribed, yet the underlying genetic code is unchanged. If you were to move the animals back to a region similar to conditions of decades ago, they would appear to lose this. None of this should cause you to 'struggle' with the underlying concept that evolution allows for the development of single cells to fish, etc. Though the theory of evolution doesn't actually cover ' the idea of spontaneous creation of matter leading to spontaneous creation of proteins, to RNA to simple reproducing DNA/RNA creatures' as that is Abiogenesis which is reliant on completely different ideas and processes. Evolution is only the process ongoing from the point at which life was formed, conflating the two doesn't help.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A 'scientific theory' should be a model designed to fit established facts, so as more facts emerge the theory of evolution may have to be altered. Some subjects have more than one theory proposed, as the set of facts could suggest either. However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.

I agree wholeheartedly! I know, it doesn't fit into the definition of a theory. What I'm saying is; it's so often called a theory by its backers (creationists/many religious people) that we can't simply be like "Pft, no evidence, moving on", like we really should have done a long time ago. Just to appease the Waaagh!-sized group of creationists, it's widely referred to as a theory, and in many contexts, referred to in such a manner as to imply it's a serious contender for an alternative to evolution. Which, you know, it isn't.

I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?

EDIT:

 dogma wrote:

Because its a seductive idea, much like cold fusion. In fact its basically the layman's version of cold fusion.

That's actually what I believe to be, if not the very origin of religion, the cause of its longevity - seductive false concepts. Life would be so much better if an all-loving, all-powerful being was looking out for us. Things would seem so much better if we knew that we, and everyone we like, are going to paradise and everyone we don't like is going to anti-paradise. I'd love that to be true. Unfortunately, fantasy and reality are separate things.

Well, I'm not sure. We're definitely fortunate that WHFB is separate from reality.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?

Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Simply, four years in higher organisms doesn't seem enough time...

It's a long enough time when we're not applying our temporal frame to it. For us it's 1/5 of a generation. For squirrels, it was 8 20 years ago, and now it's 12. You can tract hereditary traits in shorter spans of time than this.

It could be that the environment is the sole cause and that genetic background is largely unchanged, or that traits previously in the population are being selected for, and that nothing 'new' has been generated in the population, merely their relative frequencies.

Reproductive cycles are genetically determined. If you observe an added reproductive cycle, you've observed a different genetic makeup. Selection is 9/10th of evolution.

A demonstration of evolution would best be shown by an entirely new trait appearing, most likely through random mutation, then that trait becoming widespread in the population, and then becoming fixed in the population.

That's much to heavy a requirement. We have observed stable mutations (cats losing the ability to taste sugar, for example). If we can join this observation to one of selection of hereditary traits, then we have proven evolution. It doesn't matter that the traits were dormant, what matters is that they became prevalent in the entire population once their expressed character was required.