11-07-2005 01:30									#31
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi No, science can say how something happens, but struggles with the question of why. Nothing to do with abiogenesis, Boris, but about ascribing the purpose of evolution to blind chance.

"Cause" != "why," so you might want to use your terms more carefully.

But how could a "purpose" be ascribed to "blind chance," anyway? Studying evolution--or any scientific theory--doesn't deal with "purposes." But if a process in science appears to be unguided by any intelligent mechanism, which is the case for evolution, then how is it outside the realm of science to note this observation?

Would you claim that meteorologists are stepping outside the realm of science to describe the "why" of tornados and hurricanes? I'm sure a few folks might believe an invisible being like Thor is guiding each storm across the earth...but their objections to such storms being "random" are hardly of any concern to science.

	11-07-2005 01:55									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism.

Now that is false.

	11-07-2005 02:02									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Care to elaborate on your evidence for heliocentrism? Epicyclical models don't count

	11-07-2005 02:07									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism. Now that is false.

In terms of physical, concrete evidence, yes there is. We have mountains of physical evidence, plus molecular evidence, DNA evidence, morphological evidence, etc. Heliocentric evidence is limited to implications from observations--and not direct ones, since no one has even observed the earth actually going around the sun. We've observed evolution through common descent, albeit in very small test cases.

Now, the observations that lead to the conclusion of heliocentricity are very solid, but they certainly are much fewer in number.

But really, I only mentioned it so I could cite this page:

http://www.geocentricbible.com/id21.htm

quote: The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution: Dr. Jim Paulson, Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

	11-07-2005 02:10									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In terms of physical, concrete evidence, yes there is. We have mountains of physical evidence, plus molecular evidence, DNA evidence, morphological evidence, etc. Heliocentric evidence is limited to implications from observations--and not direct ones, since no one has even observed the earth actually going around the sun.

Yes they have. We have mountains of astronomical evidence (going back much further).

And of course a bioechemist would say that.

	11-07-2005 02:10									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Then they would have had to burn all the manuscripts of the ancient Greeks who established the shape of the Earth.

Not to mention all ships.

	11-07-2005 02:11									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The Origins of the Species is an old book. Is it no longer credible because it is old?

Yes, actually. Many of the points in Origin have been replaced with more up to date explanations following more recent discoveries in genetics. This is called science. It is good.

	11-07-2005 02:13									#38
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi For the same reason people look for a purpose to the universe as a whole. There seems to be more going on than can be explained away as nothing.

IOW, because we tend to anthropomorphize everything.

	11-07-2005 02:14									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker And of course a bioechemist would say that.

That "WHOOSH" sound is something going very much over your head.

	11-07-2005 02:18									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

: tongue :

	11-07-2005 03:15									#41
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi For the same reason people look for a purpose to the universe as a whole. There seems to be more going on than can be explained away as nothing.

I cannot come to the same conclusion. Why does there be the necesity for a purpose?
Have you ever looked at chaotic systems? There seems to be more going on as well and yet it isn't. It comes down to some simple laws that create complex behavior.
I also recommend you to take a look at Braitenberg Vehicle's: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~wiseman/vehicles/
Simple rules creating complex behavior and the observer asks himself what is going on and tries to deduct a meaning.

There is really absolute NO evidence of any kind that the universe has a purpose.

	11-07-2005 03:24									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa There is really absolute NO evidence of any kind that the universe has a purpose.

	11-07-2005 03:29									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Bill3000 If he said something like god guided evolution I'd think it would be slightly more acceptable, but whatever.

there is no way that that is incompatible with the theory of evolution

as such, while that idea is not scientific, neither is it against science...

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 04:11									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yeah, but let Ochams razor just slice through it

	11-07-2005 04:20									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ochams razor is not science...

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 04:23									#46
	Remove this text

people can, and did (in past) claim all sorts of things with ochams razor

and if we accepted ochams razor as science then we would never have explored the atom, the proton, or space-time...

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 04:27									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

What is Ochams razor?

	11-07-2005 04:31									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

One of these perhaps?

	11-07-2005 04:33									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller people can, and did (in past) claim all sorts of things with ochams razor and if we accepted ochams razor as science then we would never have explored the atom, the proton, or space-time... Jon Miller

That's not true. All of those were explored because of the failure of current theory to predict.

	11-07-2005 04:41									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion What is Ochams razor?

Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.

An example of this is geocentrism as compared to heliocentricism. Geocentricism, in order to be scientifically consistant with the observations we have, needs to have epicycles to explain the variations in speed and direction of the apparent motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets. (for retrograde motion) This can get very complex, at least when compared to the heliocentric model.

Another example is Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis vs. special relativity - before special relativity, Lorentz posed that everything was affected by travel through the lumerifious aether, a medium that was hypothesized to be the substance that light propragates through. This hypothesis was basically a last ditch attempt to save the lumerifious aether hypothesis from being completely discredited, which was in serious question after the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, the light was being affected in the "natural" manner by its travel though the aether as predicted, but so was the experiment itself, cancelling out any difference when measured.

Of course, given special relativity, this was too "complex" - there's no reason to have an aether at all. (Well, to be fair, what can be considered the modern "aether" would be the vacuum of space, but that still has a ton of differences from the properties the luminiferous aether had, but whatever)

It's a strategic form of logic that's extremely helpful in science to decide which hypothesis is "better", basically - keep it simple (in concept, not math - also known as more "elegant")

	11-07-2005 04:43									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The simplest explanation is the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 04:44									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

My explanation was better.

	11-07-2005 04:46									#53
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's not true. All of those were explored because of the failure of current theory to predict.

there were time periods when there was no failure to predict...

(and in a number of cases.. people still favored one theory despite it not being the 'simplest' to explain the experiment at the time..)

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 04:53									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: No, it is not meant to explain how God created the world in minute detail, and nor was it written for that purpose. This is why the Cardinal focusses on the cause behind evolution rather than the workings of evolution. Science cannot purport or establish a cause behind evolution, it can only describe how evolution works, and when science presumes to establish the cause, it has stepped beyond it's domain.

Lemme say something here. This strategy by the church was first done with things that is normally accepted today - evolution (erm... well, the concept of common descent and such versus 7-day creationism, I mean.), the fact that the earth is round, geocentrism, et cetera. There are some things that humans have in error when it comes to these "guesses", basically. While science does search for Truth as does religion, it searches for them in different ways, ("how", not "why") and has been more successful in this case than religion has. (Has there recently been any more truths gained/revealed through a new prophet in the founded religions? Most likely not, although there is theology, but that's just reinterpretation of knowledge already known.)

While science does seem to be leading toward a purposeless universe (due to the fact that humanity tends to think that itself is special), that doesn't mean that religion is ultimately false. Well, even if it may, it wouldn't be that big a deal. You can love nature itself, the universe itself, as a supreme being just as you can a ientient omnipoten and omniscient (even though omniscience is impossible) god.

Religion makes errors, as does all of humanity. Sometimes both logic and faith fail us as we make mistakes. Science works around these errors in order to adapt to new knowledge, while religion tends to not, and that's the problem that most scientists have toward organized religion. Dogma has a stigma for precisely this reason.

	11-07-2005 04:57									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there were time periods when there was no failure to predict... (and in a number of cases.. people still favored one theory despite it not being the 'simplest' to explain the experiment at the time..) Jon Miller

It's not simply a matter of simplicity. General Relativity is most certainatly not as simple as Newtonian Gravity - just look at the mathematics. However, it is more elegant. It is more refined theory and can explain things that Newtonian Gravity cannot without artifical additions to it.

It's the ability of a previous known hypthoesis to have artifical additions (Like the lumerifious aether's attempts of saving) which are examples of occam's razor - not the actual mathematics itself.

And while Occam's Razor isn't science, (it's logic) it is useful in science sometimes.

	11-07-2005 04:59									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

another example

in the 70s numerous theories beyond the standard model were developed..

one was SU(2) X SU(2) X SO(4)

another was SU(5)

(I may not remember them quite right.. it has been ~1.4 years (And I always forget SU versus SO))

SU(5) was prefered because it was simpler and more elegant

but some prefered the other, and continued to study it

recently (late 90s) with the discovery of neutrino oscilation

which is a natural result of SU(2) X SU(2) X SO(4) ...

so now I think more people think it is the more complicated theory which is correct

Jon Miller

Last edited by Jon Miller on 11-07-2005 at 05:44

	11-07-2005 05:01									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I don't argue that Occam's Razor is not useful to science sometimes..

I just argue that using Occam's Razor to eliminate a theory is not neccesarily correct..

Jon Miller

	11-07-2005 05:05									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I don't argue that Occam's Razor is not useful to science sometimes.. I just argue that using Occam's Razor to eliminate a theory is not neccesarily correct.. Jon Miller

It cannot be the sole factor, yes. But it's a good rule of thumb (and that is basically what it is)

And as I said, it's a not of matter of complexity, but elegance. Elegance doesn't have to be directly proportional to simplicity, although it can be.

...oh wait, read your post. Meh. As I said, rule of thumb. Allright, I agree with you - it's not always necessarily correct, but rule of thumb. *ducks before getting smacked for saying that 50 times*

	11-07-2005 08:09									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: That cardinal basically said that all the knoledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, population biology, genetics, and palenotology that PROVE evolution via natural selection is a fact

It is the Theory of Evolution. However likely it might seem (and it is very very very likely), it is neither a fact nor proven.

	11-07-2005 08:13									#60
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos It is the Theory of Evolution. However likely it might seem (and it is very very very likely), it is neither a fact nor proven.

This always goes in circles when the ignorant jump in the fray:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Once again, the word "Theory" in science does not, repeat, DOES NOT denote that something isn't proven. This is conflating the word "hypothesis" and "theory."