The Trivers-Willard hypothesis

I'm waiting for the IDists to explain how using ID theory, this would have been discovered sooner.

I don't get it -- what does this have to do with evolution? It simply states that different environmental conditions can skew the distribution of m/f in the offspring. Seems kind of obvious to a humble physicist. Was it demonstrated that this bias evolved as opposed to simply being present?

David, I'll bet a pitcher of beer that ill-nourished females have better reproductive prospects than ill-nourished males while the reverse is true for males (a male of most species can sire many more offspring than a female can birth).  The prediction of evolutionary theory is that strategies which improve reproductive fitness will tend to be selected for, so you would expect to find a bias towards male offspring in well-nourished mothers (who can give them the advantages required for successful competition against other males) and the reverse bias in the offspring of ill-nourished mothers.

I still don't understand--you write "The prediction of evolutionary theory is that strategies which improve reproductive fitness will tend to be selected for, so you would expect to find a bias towards male offspring in well-nourished mothers" -- but what about evolution CAUSED this bias? It is not enough to make common sense arguments. That's not science. To say some "strategy" is behind it without saying how, dynamically, the "strategy" was carried out is the same as attributing it to an unseen intelligence. Where is the evidence that this bias, at some point did NOT exist, and now it does?

So this piece of data happens to fit what evolutionists predict -- a great deal of planetary data fits the epicycle model. So what? Until you can give a real theory, that A caused B then C and now we are seeing D, you're just making wild ass unfalsifiable guesses that happen to be right on occasion.

Science? I don't think so.

Sorry, I misspoke; I'm an engineer, not a scientist.  The word "strategy" is too loaded with connotations of conscious purpose and is obviously not correct.  I should have said tendency or mutation.

A tendency or mutation can arise by accident, but if it promotes reproductive success and is heritable it will tend toward ubiquity.

"The prediction of evolutionary theory is that strategies which improve reproductive fitness will tend to be selected for, so you would expect to find a bias towards male offspring in well-nourished mothers" --- but what about evolution CAUSED this bias? It is not enough to make common sense arguments. That's not science. To say some "strategy" is behind it without saying how, dynamically, the "strategy" was carried out is the same as attributing it to an unseen intelligence. Where is the evidence that this bias, at some point did NOT exist, and now it does? So this piece of data happens to fit what evolutionists predict --- a great deal of planetary data fits the epicycle model. So what? Until you can give a real theory, that A caused B then C and now we are seeing D, you're just making wild ass unfalsifiable guesses that happen to be right on occasion. Science? I don't think so.

Steve, fair enough, but just like Galileo there is no theory here, just observation. What Galileo did was important, but it is not on par with Newton, who actually explained it with a theory.

The so-called theory here is natural selection, but all you can do is say "see these data fit what we expect." If the data don't fit, then you say "Hmm, there must be some environmental pressure we are not aware of." The theory can never fail. It's a tautology.

I still don't understand---you write "The prediction of evolutionary theory is that strategies which improve reproductive fitness will tend to be selected for, so you would expect to find a bias towards male offspring in well-nourished mothers" --- but what about evolution CAUSED this bias?

— David Heddle

But biologists have also noticed that in some situations other animals--including humans--can give birth to an overabundance of sons or daughters. In the early 1970s, Robert Trivers and Dan Willard, both then at Harvard, wondered if mothers might be able to control the sex ratio of their offspring to boost their own reproductive success. They imagined a species, such as deer, in which relatively few males mated with most females. If a doe gives birth to a healthy male, he is likely to grow up into a healthy buck that has a good chance of producing lots of grandchildren for the doe. In fact, he would be able to produce far more grandchildren than even the most successful daughter. He could impregnate lots of mates, while a daughter could produce only a couple offspring a year, which she would then have to nurse. So if the doe is in good health and can give birth to strong offspring, she would do best to produce sons. On the other hand, if this doe gives birth to a male in poor condition, he may be unable to compete with other males, and his chances of reproducing fall to zero. Since most females that live to adulthood give birth to at least some offspring, it would make more sense to give birth to a daughter rather than a son in poor condition.

It is not enough to make common sense arguments. That's not science. To say some "strategy" is behind it without saying how, dynamically, the "strategy" was carried out is the same as attributing it to an unseen intelligence. Where is the evidence that this bias, at some point did NOT exist, and now it does?

— David Heddle

I responded because I didn't know you were a creationist. Not understanding how it's important could have been a reasonable complaint, claiming that this example shows evolution's a tautology isn't. I don't argue with unreasonable people, but there are several people here who do because they like the practice, so I'll leave this to them.

Steve, fair enough, but just like Galileo there is no theory here, just observation. What Galileo did was important, but it is not on par with Newton, who actually explained it with a theory.

— David Heddle

The so-called theory here is natural selection, but all you can do is say "see these data fit what we expect." If the data don't fit, then you say "Hmm, there must be some environmental pressure we are not aware of." The theory can never fail.

It's a tautology.

I am not a creationist -- at least not a young earth creationist.

I did not say selection never fails, I said that the Theory of Natural Selection can never fail, it is sufficiently malleable that it can be adapted to any result.

Unless I missed something, the hypothesis was that there would be a bias in m/f births based on environmental conditions. And so there was. I just don't see how this can be heralded as a victory for evolution. Fitting the data is fine, but a theory should have predictive power and should be testable.

Another way to put it: no outcome of Cameron's study would have been recognized as a blow to evolutionary biology. If the study had turned out the other way, would it have shaken any foundations? Caused any text books to be rewritten? Nope. Nothing can shake evolution, because it isn't science. Its just couching observations in a framework.

Funny since Behe argue that Natural selection can 'fail'. But what does he know...

So what is the ID hypothesis again?

Parallel universes with different physics, universes which cannot be detected, and we just happen to be in a rare fertile one, versus intelligent design, many aspects of which are testable. Which of these is scientific?

I did not say selection never fails, I said that the Theory of Natural Selection can never fail, it is sufficiently malleable that it can be adapted to any result.

— David Heddle

Unless I missed something, the hypothesis was that there would be a bias in m/f births based on environmental conditions.

Another way to put it: no outcome of Cameron's study would have been recognized as a blow to evolutionary biology.

Nothing can shake evolution, because it isn't science. Its just couching observations in a framework.

If the study had turned out the other way, would it have shaken any foundations? Caused any text books to be rewritten? Nope. Nothing can shake evolution, because it isn't science.

Can any of you argue without getting snippy? It is true I know very little about evolutionary biology, I'm a nuclear physicist. And I am not into "creation science". And I have not mentioned ID in this thread. What I have said is that what you are calling science, isn't. It's speculation that fits a presupposition. In that sense, it is on equal footing with ID. Both merely fit the data. Back to the physics analogy--its Galileo, not Newton.

It is true I know very little about evolutionary biology, I'm a nuclear physicist. And I am not into "creation science". And I have not mentioned ID in this thread. What I have said is that what you are calling science, isn't. It's speculation that fits a presupposition. In that sense, it is on equal footing with ID. Both merely fit the data. Back to the physics analogy---its Galileo, not Newton.

— David Heddle

Just claiming that it isn't science does not make it so. It's a hypothesis strongly supported by the observation. For instance see Endler on examples of Natural Selection.

ID is not even a speculation, it's a negative argument based on ignorance. You hinted in another thread at testable ID. Curious minds would like to know what you are refering to?

It is true I know very little about evolutionary biology, I'm a nuclear physicist. And I am not into "creation science". And I have not mentioned ID in this thread. What I have said is that what you are calling science, isn't. It's speculation that fits a presupposition. In that sense, it is on equal footing with ID. Both merely fit the data. Back to the physics analogy---its Galileo, not Newton.

— David Heddle

Both merely fit the data

the Theory of Natural Selection can never fail, it is sufficiently malleable that it can be adapted to any result.

— David Heddle

So you know very little about evolutionary biology, but you are sure that it is not science. I know very little about nuclear physics, but I am sure that it is not science, but a form of pedophilia.

ID is not even a speculation, it's a negative argument based on ignorance. You hinted in another thread at testable ID. Curious minds would like to know what you are refering to?

1st I fail to see how ID has any real theories that "Fit the data" 2nd isn't that what sciense is about. Formulating theories that fit with the data. Even in your field the theories and laws are just ones that fit the data and there is a possibility that tomorrow or some other day we'll find data that doesn't fit the current laws and theories.

If Charlie Wagners aliens land on earth and explain how they controlled all the living organisms of the earth tomorrow then evolution would be thrown out and we'd have a different label like "Alien modification of species". But for now evolution is the best fit for the data. I'm sure other theories will come about that will refine it like P.E. but that doesn't say the overall concept of evolution is wrong.

Reed,

I believe I have answered your two points repeatedly. Once again, what is a definitive real test, with a plausible possible negative outcome, that can be done that to test evolution (not just genetics)?

With Quantum Mechanics, I can do an experiment on electron diffraction. If I don't see it, then QM is wrong. That is science.

Science proves stuff all the time. For example, it has clearly proved that Newton's theories are ultimately insufficient. It proved that Bohr's model of the atom with electrons zipping around like planets is wrong. It requires (realistic) tests that prove something can be wrong. Maybe you meant that science cannot prove something is "ultimately" correct.

As for not being an expert in evolutionary biology, if being an expert as opposed to just being interested is a pre-requisite for posting here, then I'll refrain.

This is what biologists have to put up with that physicists don't; everybody thinks they know enough about biology to pass judgement on it.

I believe I have answered your two points repeatedly.

— David Heddle

Once again, what is a definitive real test, with a plausible possible negative outcome, that can be done that to test evolution (not just genetics)?

Science proves stuff all the time. For example, it has clearly proved that Newton's theories are ultimately insufficient. It proved that Bohr's model of the atom with electrons zipping around like planets is wrong. It requires (realistic) tests that prove something can be wrong. Maybe you meant that science cannot prove something is "ultimately" correct.

As for not being an expert in evolutionary biology, if being an expert as opposed to just being interested is a pre-requisite for posting here, then I'll refrain.

Reed,

Of course genetics is part of evolution. I made that point, I didn't deny it. I never claimed that adaptation though genetics does not occur.

So, by your argument, science, being incapable of proof, has not proved that the earth revolves around the sun?

No doubt my terminology is lacking. But I more or less equate genetics with micro-evolution. And by the generic term evolution I mean speciation.

An again, I haven't said it is wrong. I said it is unfalsifiable, and hence not science. I apply the same criticism to the parallel universe theories that abound in my own discipline.

So, by your argument, science, being incapable of proof, has not proved that the earth revolves around the sun?

— David Heddle

No doubt my terminology is lacking. But I more or less equate genetics with micro-evolution.

I said it is unfalsifiable, and hence not science.

David,

You said, "And by the generic term evolution I mean speciation," and, " I said it is unfalsifiable, and hence not science."

To echo Reed in the previous post, would you mind providing your working definition of "speciation"? By at least some widely held definitions, it's occurring in abundance as we speak.

David Heddle: I said it [evolution, I guess - not sure] is unfalsifiable, and hence not science

Prior to the time we learned how to determine DNA sequences, evolutionary biology predicted that the pattern of DNA similarities among species would reflect the nested hierarchy of evolutionary relatedness. If the DNA sequences had contradicted that hierarchy, that prediction would have been falsified. The moral of the story is that "thus far unfalsified" does not equal "unfalsifiable".

Reed,

You can continue to attack my credentials in biology and I will only agree.

Bob,

I would have to think about how to present my definition of speciation, because I don't want to slide into an unproductive debate about whether or not species A evolved into species B. That is in fact an example of what is not scientific--plausibility arguments are not science.

Russell,

Fair point. I agree that if you disprove genetics evolution would go down with it. But what I am saying is that we all agree on genetics, but evolution is more than that, how do you falsify the aspects of evolution that go beyond genetics?

For example, the IDers would say the similarities arose from reuse of good design patterns. That's unfalsifiable. Not science. So is the claim that environmental stress caused one species to branch into others.

Heddle: For example, the IDers would say the similarities arose from reuse of good design patterns. That's unfalsifiable.

The real problem is that it is totally ad hoc. ID has no logically contrained designer. That's the problem when invoking an entity who we just do not understand or can predict.

I am still interested in these testable hypotheses of ID...

how do you falsify the aspects of evolution that go beyond genetics

David Heddle: what I am saying is that we all agree on genetics, but evolution is more than that, how do you falsify the aspects of evolution that go beyond genetics?

I'm not so sure we do all agree on genetics. This is another incarnation of creationists' favorite artificial dichotomy: "micro-" vs. "macro-" evolution. Yes, we all agree on what we expect from, say, the DNA patterns of different dog breeds. But so far as I can tell, the relationship between whale and cow DNA doesn't make much sense except in an evolutionary (and, yes, macroevolutionary) framework.

Also, I would say evolution is just genetics writ large; I can't conceive of the former except in terms of the latter. What "aspects" are you referring to?

Russel,

That fact that common DNA similarities "proves" that different species evolved from a common ancestor. That is not a proof, but a plausibility argument. It may be correct, but it is no more scientific than saying an intelligence reused good patterns.

What the hell are you talking about!? Who said anything about "proof"? You contended that evolution was no more falsifiable than ID. I showed you that was nonsense. Now you're complaining that I didn't "prove" evolution.

Tell you what. Suppose instead of conjuring strawman cartoons of what evolution is all about, go to the current issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology and tell us why none of those articles are any more scientific than your favorite ID "scholarship".

What the hell are you talking about!? Who said anything about "proof"? You contended that evolution was no more falsifiable than ID. I showed you that was nonsense. Now you're complaining that I didn't "prove" evolution.

Tell you what. Suppose instead of conjuring strawman cartoons of what evolution is all about, go to the current issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology and tell us why none of those articles are any more scientific than your favorite ID "scholarship".

You contended that evolution was no more falsifiable than ID. I showed you that was nonsense.

What I have said is that what you are calling science [i.e. evolution], isn't. It's speculation that fits a presupposition. In that sense, it is on equal footing with ID.

Me: You contended that evolution was no more falsifiable than ID. I showed you that was nonsense.

David: That's a dream. You gave an example where genetics was falsifiable, and I agreed.

Huh? What's a dream? Did you not contend that evolution was no more falsifiable than ID? Did I not give you a very clear example of how it could have been falsified?

Do you think that by redefining any aspect of evolution that's essentially settled as "micro"-evolution, or, in your case, "genetics", creationists can honestly contend that Darwin was wrong?

I tried to go to your online journal, but it required payment.

David: I tried to go to your online journal, but it required payment.

Dang. Sorry about that. I didn't notice we have an institutional subscription. But if you don't have access to that journal, just go to PubMed and search: Proc Natl Acad Sci AND evolution, and show us any article that really doesn't qualify as science.

I did one search on PubMed "human evolutionary adaptation" and saw an article entitled The dual biological identity of human beings and the naturalization of morality , Hist Philos Life Sci. 2003;25(2):211-41.

In its abstract: "The concept of the dual biological identity may be used to explain the Kantian concept of the two metaphysical worlds, namely of the causal necessity and of the free will (Azzone, 2001)."

Okay, I am not proposing that as evidence for my claim, it was just too good to resist.

Doing the search you suggested...

Okay, this is unfair and deserves greater study (do I only get to see the abstract?), but your search produced Evolvability is a selectable trait, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11531-6. Epub 2004 Aug 02. The abstract concludes: "Our results demonstrate that evolvability is a selectable trait and allow for the explanation of a large body of experimental results". If I read this correctly, this was a computer simulation. I don't have the whole paper, but I am skeptical that their work "demonstrates" that evolvability is a selectable trait and that it explains a large body of experimental results.

David,

Concerning the evolution and definition of species:

I believe a "species" is rather generally considered to be a group of organisms interacting, breeding, and producing fertile offspring in the wild. Does that suffice for you?

Proc Natl Acad Sci has free access to thousands of articles. (Though maybe not the latest issue). Choose one where you can read the article, so you don't have to be skeptical based on elliptical abstracts.

Bob,

Yes--that works for me. Keep in mind that I do not deny that speciation occurs in lower organisms.

Russel,

You may take this as an evasion, but I do not know how quickly I can scan through articles--I would rather react to articles that I read in my normal reading.

I don't have the whole paper, but I am skeptical that their work "demonstrates" that evolvability is a selectable trait and that it explains a large body of experimental results.

You're confident that evolution is not science, but you can't or won't read any of it.

I think we're done here.

GWW you are amusing. I certainly do not care if anyone cares whether I am skeptical.

Russell, I did not say I wouldn't read evolution, I read a great deal of it. I don't feel compelled to browse papers at your bidding. I have a day job.

GWW you are amusing. I certainly do not care if anyone cares whether I am skeptical.

I did not say I wouldn't read evolution, I read a great deal of it. I don't feel compelled to browse papers at your bidding. I have a day job.

Well, that's certainly understandable. So go ahead and pick your favorite example - that you have read - of evolutionary biology from the peer reviewed science literature, that demonstrates how it's not science.

Mind you, we're setting the bar awfully low here. I'm just asking you to show us the most egregious example you can of evolution not being science, while we all agree that no ID rises to the level where that's even a question.

GWW invited DH to "try to imagine a creature whose discovery would turn biology upside down and cause pandemonium among scientists around the world."

Come on, let's have some fun. There are 2 conjectures that may be necessary & sufficient for our ID friends: (i) that for any given element of genetic phase space (defined, say, as the probability space of all possible viable genomes) there is at least one other element of genetic phase space that is inaccessible from that given element either by descent with modification or by horizontal transfer or any combination of the two, and (ii) that at least one element of genetic phase space actually exists, which is inaccessible from any other known element. First conjecture seems non-contentious enough in principle. Second is simply a matter of finding an example.

Where to look? Seems to me that given biologists' amazing capacity to shoe-horn inconvenient beasties into whatever structure is currently fashionable, the obvious place to look is where they've been unsuccessful, that is in the problematica.

[Got to confess here to a soft spot for monsters and I cried when the great Chilean blob turned out to be, as feared, just a chunk of old whale. But there, it takes all sorts.]

It would be a pyrrhic victory for our ID friends to prove that the special place in God's creation is reserved, not for ourselves, but for the tully monster or some such beast, but a victory none the less.

Until more evidence or a better theory comes along.

the probability space of all possible viable genomes

David,

What exactly do you consider "lower organisms"?

GWW - are you sure your creature would be viable? It would die of shame.

GWW - are you sure your creature would be viable? It would die of shame.

Russell,

That's too easy, for axample

W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, "Selfish Genes, The Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution," Nature, 284, (1980), pp. 601-603.

L. E. Orgel and F. H. C. Crick, "Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite," Nature, 284 (1980), pp. 604-607.

Does one have to have a "degree" or be considered an expert in order to talk about whatever subject? Experts have proved themselves wrong, too.

Anyway, there are different definitions for evolution I see getting mashed together.

One view of evolution is the change of one animal type to another as in a fish becoming a lizard. This is so bogus.

Adaptation and traits are not necessarily evolution but characteristics that are already there. Selective breeding to bring out certain traits is not necessarily evolution. If I go into the gym and lift weights to make bigger muscles, I have a certain genetic potential to have muscles of a certain size. I do not become a super human by my weight lifting. My genes are not changed by my weight lifting. My offspring do not benefit from my weight lifting.

Creationists do not consider themselves God. There is only one God, our Creator.

David Heddle:
Russell,
That's too easy, for axample...

You're absolutely right - it is way too easy. But I want to get into the details : tell me what you think these two papers lack that make them NOT science, and/or what they HAVE that IDists wouldn't get away with.

(If I've read them, I really don't remember them, so for all I know at this point, I'll agree with you.)

The point I want to make, of course, is not that every paper on evolution is a good, or even defensible, one. It's that the "level playing field" argument you're making is demonstrably bogus.

Russell,

Go read them yourself, I'm not your lackey. See if what they say about junk DNA is speculative and not demonstrated. And read for yourself all the papers that followed that built upon their work.

And review Miller's famous Chicago life-in-the-lab work. I would have flunked him in jumior lab for biasing the experiment to get the desired results and then overselling those results w/o full disclosure.

If you insist that this is all "good science", then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Go read them yourself, I'm not your lackey

Whoa! Is this the same guy that complained about snippiness here?

OF COURSE, I intend to go read them. But I need to know EXACTLY what YOUR critique is.

I thought I was being collegial and taking your argument seriously here, but your attitude is starting to really piss me off.

I have stated my complaint many times: some speculation is tolerated in publication, other speculation isn't. It's that simple. The highly regarded papers I referenced contain speculation. They are deemed acceptable. Fair enough. I only have a problem with the absurd claim that ID has a level playing field. It doesn't. And I even agree it shouldn't. But it is elitist or naive to claim it does.

One view of evolution is the change of one animal type to another as in a fish becoming a lizard. This is so bogus.

I only have a problem with the absurd claim that ID has a level playing field. It doesn't. And I even agree it shouldn't. But it is elitist or naive to claim it does.

OK. What we have here is a not very interesting question of semantics. The folks who originally raised the sports analogy of an uneven playing field were trying to make a case that the deck was stacked against them. (To use a sports analogy more in keeping with my lifestyle). I.e., that The Establishment was being "unfair" in some impeachable sense. THAT's what I am calling bogus.

Is that not the sense in which that complaint was raised? And do we not all agree on the bogosity of that complaint?

"Speculations" on the nature and behavior of oxygen are, and should be, much more acceptable in a modern chemistry journal than speculations on the nature and behavior of phlogiston, to use RBH's analogy.

David,

Again - what exactly do you consider to be lower organisms?

GWW's shameless monster "does, however, continually emit the synthesizer track from song "905"". I don't remember the Who. I think I must have gone direct from the 1960's, when a most vivid dream that Collembola are closet crustaceans frightened me off biology for ever, to the 1980s.

I pity the shameless monster. It's not needed. http://www.forteantimes.com/ gives us all the evidence that's needed by way of flying pigs, women giving birth to rabbits and so on, to disprove the theory of evolution (and much else) many times over. Our ID friends really should make more use of this wonderful resource.

But they've got into a rut with all this statistical stuff. I have tried and tried to understand the point of this but the answer always comes out "er .... so?" I accept that that's my problem but it doesn't really help when other contributors post (in so many words) that I'm not qualified to understand the maths, even when that is probably (p= (p

David, Again - what exactly do you consider to be lower organisms?

— Bob Maurus

Well I'm an IDer like David, so if that means you write my comments off before I even begin, so be it.

It seems to me that some (at least) of the disagreement could be cleared up with better semantics. Specifically, what do we mean by "science"?

This word has evolved (!) over the years, and still has different meanings to different people. For example, in the middle ages theology was considered the "queen of sciences". I doubt many people today would consider theology a science.

An older friend of mine is a psychologist and he insists that psychology is a science because of its empirical nature.

Some people regard history as a science. Others would place it in that nebulous sphere called "the humanities".

I've just realised that I am a scientist too! I have a bachelor of science from a reputable university. It is in computer science.

All of these "sciences" are very different to the nuclear physics of Dr Heddle, or the biology of this thread. Lets get an agreed definition of science and then the question can be answered.

ID of course perfectly fits the data, because everything can lay claim to having been designed, including the m/f bias.

— David Heddle

Actually I don't believe that your aliens would do the trick

— David Heddle

What is a definitive real test, with a plausible possible negative outcome, that can be done that to test evolution (not just genetics)?

— David Heddle

Yes---that works for me. Keep in mind that I do not deny that speciation occurs in lower organisms.

— David Heddle

Wayne,

Don't forget lions amd tigers, which don't interbreed in the wild, but do produce fertile offspring when crossbred in captivity. I had hoped David would answer my question, so we could establish some operable parameters, but I guess that was not to be.

I've seen the general shape of David Heddle's arguments before, and these are usually clarified (after the usual runaround) into a distinction between "experimental" and "descriptive" science. The argument then holds that "descriptive" sciences (like cosmology, astronomy, geology, evolution) aren't "real" sciences because they make no predictions, except the very weak prediction that the general pattern derived from observations so far, will tend to be followed by observations in the future following this same pattern.

However, if future observations do NOT follow the predicted pattern, the "theory" is none the worse; it's simply extended or modified to accommodate the latest observations. Since the name of the theory didn't change, the presumption is that the theory itself didn't change, and therefore cannot be falsified.

But in reality, there is no such thing as a purely descriptive science that makes no predictions. Astronomers are just observers, but telescope time is dear indeed. Examinations of the universe aren't made at random; theory guides them. David Heddle, like most people shaping such an argument, doesn't seem to realize that there is no qualitative difference between a lab experiment and a paleontological expedition: Both are attempts to create circumstances by means of which predictions can be supported or rejected. The only difference lies in whether the experimental circumstances are managed by people or by natural (i.e. not managed by people) circumstances.

And so, if the nuclear physicist with his atom smasher creates a "theoretically impossible" particle, or if the paleontologist finds a human skeleton in a Jurassic stratum (and observational errors can be ruled out), both scientists must do some very serious re-theorizing. In each case the predictions contrary to observation are real and critical.

This thread, unfortunately, never passed the "runaround" phase. We still have no clear idea what Heddle means by evolution, or lower organisms, or microevolution. The important notion of "scientific proof" was raised, but left unresolved. Craig's excellent question about just where the boundaries of science lie was simply ignored, but as the rather embarrassed holder of a "political science" degree, I find this more than a semantic issue.

Human Cells Revert to Embryo State, Scientists Assert

Should we be diving into this area?

It is very touchy ground. While we have the ability to clone sheep and cows the current technology is far from what we need for primates. With dolly, the cloned sheep, there where almost 300 attempts made. Can we allow the same situation to happen with humans? I'm not talking a religious issue here but just basic human rights. Should we be able to test this type of stuff on our closest relative the chimpanzee? There is actually a legal movement going on to give the great apes the equivalent of human rights. In places like New Zealand it is illegal to do tests on great apes without their promission if the test does not benifit their species. Good thing they have a good population of signing great apes that regularly agree to different psychological testing.

Anyway I'v heard rumors about naturally occuring hybrids though I'll believe it more when I see the evidence. I do know about artifical hybrids embreos using Human DNA and both Pig and Cow cells. I wouldn't doubt that some lab some place tucked away from public eyes is trying to perfect the process. But the thing is it might not come into public view sinse there is slim chance that they could obtain pattents.

anyway 1 am....time for me to goto bed.

Physics is often idealized as the model of science, it's practitioners idealized as model scientists. That's wrong. Sciences accomodate their subject matter. Their methods and practices necessarily differ. Creationists who want to disparage biology and evolution by comparing it to physics make this mistake. Anyway, I see nothing in evolution which is as problematic as the sheer incompatibility of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

This is something I'm working on:

When compared to physics biology is messy and hard. For a physicist to do something similar to biology they would have to ask "what have the exact positions of this particle been for the last million years."

Reed,

Would that make W a biologist wanna-be? He did a lot of whining last week about how hard his job is - and he's certainly made a mess of things! :^)