Posted by Chris on May 12, 1998 at 16:46:49:
In Reply to: Is science based on faith posted by Walker on May 12, 1998 at 12:26:45:
It's important that in our quest to promote knowledge we take a step back and say to ourselves, "Is there really experimental evidence to support this?"
I think you are doing an intellectually honest job of asking questions and not taking evolution for granted--in contrast with some of your original posts likening evolution to pseudosciences. Keep reading. I would suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker to get one biologist's perspective. IMO, Richard Dawkins does the best job of presenting a logical case in favor of natural selection as the primary force of evolution. I know you really want experimental evidence, but I think familiarizing yourself with the proper perspective (yes, it is my opinion that Dawkins' is the proper perspective) will influence how you approach the evidence.
I guess I'm bothered by this attitude that "ample evidence already exists, we need no further proof". Well, this kind of sounds like, "A bible, a bible. We have got a bible."
Whose attitude is that? Do you think biologists have that attitude? Time and money are finite resources. One of the most important decisions in science is which problem to spend your resources on. Where's the fertile ground? Nobody wants to make his life's work the reinvention of the wheel. You wouldn't expect a physicist to allocate resources to further proving Newton's Laws, would you? Evolution is the equivalent law of biology. Any support for basic questions like "did it happen?" or "is it happening now?" will likely be circumstantial. More important questions, in the eyes of practicing biologists, are mechanistic specifics of speciation and mutation. This is very different from the attitude, "evolution is proven beyond all doubt and we have no need for more proof," which is clearly a statement of dogma and not of science.
A repeatable, verifiable exeriment would not only lend additional support to the theory of evolution, but consider the possible windfall: a) how to reliably direct evolution
Agriculture has been doing this since the dawn of civilization. Artificial selection--reliably directing evolution--was an important part of Darwin's argument in favor of evolution. A repeatable, verifiable experiment demonstrating that speciation can occur would not be as useful as an experiment that helps us understand the specific mechanisms of speciation and mutation. Again, these are the types of expiriments that modern evolutionary biologists seem to be most interested in.
b) how to accelerate useful mutation (not just wait around for it to happen)
Once again, more likely to come from the study of mechanisms than from digging up more proof for evolution.
c) improve methods for detecting when evolution has happened; gene mapping etc.
Certainly.
4) create new species, or possible recreate extinct ones through devolution. Well, maybe I'm just talking science fiction now.
Depending on how you define species, agriculture has already produced new species. As for recreating extinct ones...yeah, probably just science fiction.