 |
| |
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
This always goes in circles when the ignorant jump in the fray |
Actually these things go in circles when people take themselves way too seriously, like yourself.
Lighten up 
One of the great things about science is that in all its effort to prove things, the very rules of the process make it impossible to reach its goal. I believe in evolution, but in the end it is just my opinion. An educated one, considering that there are mountains of "evidence" for its truth, but that runs out at a point and I assume that it is true. I accept that I could be wrong (learn from that).
Then there is Boris. Boris read somewhere that if you put the word "theory" in front of it then it must be true. Though you have not seen evolution, touched it, experienced it, or in any other tangible way proven it exist, you BELIEVE in it and harshly defend it against all criticism.
You have faith in it, hypocrite
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
Then there is Boris. Boris read somewhere that if you put the word "theory" in front of it then it must be true. Though you have not seen evolution, touched it, experienced it, or in any other tangible way proven it exist, you BELIEVE in it and harshly defend it against all criticism.
You have faith in it, hypocrite |
If you had bother to read the link, it addresses this point perfectly well:
quote:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
|
"Proven" is always provisional, and that's what science says. Saying that something isn't a "fact" or isn't "proven" because you hold those to words to be absolute delineations is actually misusing those words, since all facts are, indeed, provisional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
It's not merely a "hypothesis," Ben, and it's disengenuous to describe it as such. It's one of the most well-supported theories (in the scientific sense of the word) that we have.
|
It is a hypothesis, and I would challenge your assertion that it has been as well proven as other scientific theories have been. The first thing I would cite is the lack of falsifiability of evolution. Since evolution is said to occur slowly over time, it cannot be disproven, until that period has passed. Unlike other theories that make claims which can be disproven, evolution makes claims that cannot be readily tested.
quote:
There is more evidence on hand for common descent than there is for heliocentrism.
|
Is there? That's a statement I find pretty incredible. Heliocentrism, falls from basic assumptions about the way in which the universe works, in the mass of the sun and how gravity operates between masses separated at a large distance.
The proof in favour of heliocentrism, is that we can actually go out in space and observe how the earth rotates the sun from our space probes. That's concrete, observational evidence, which common descent does not provide.
We cannot observe directly how common descent happened, we can only infer it from other evidence. Therefore, I would say heliocentrism is better supported than theories on common descent.
quote:
The number of scientists who question it is extremely small, and the number of biologists almost nil. Even those who question Darwinism accept common descent. I repeat: it's one of the most well-supported theories that we have.
|
Not when compared to heliocentrism, and many of our other theories in chemistry, physics, and biology. I would go so far to say that this assumption in biology is one of the things holding biology back.
quote:
It is certainly scientific to make the observation that evolution appears to happen through "random" rather than "guided" means, since that's what we seem to see. If no mechanism of guidance is detected, the scientific belief should be that the process isn't guided. That's a pretty basic principle of scientific method.
|
The assumption that just because one cannot detect guidance in a process does not necessarily prove that then process cannot be guided. It's an argument from silence. All one can say, according to the scientific method, is that we do know know whether the process is guided or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is a hypothesis, and I would challenge your assertion that it has been as well proven as other scientific theories have been. The first thing I would cite is the lack of falsifiability of evolution. Since evolution is said to occur slowly over time, it cannot be disproven, until that period has passed. Unlike other theories that make claims which can be disproven, evolution makes claims that cannot be readily tested. |
Utter bullshit. Evolution could be falsified in several ways:
-a static fossil record;
-true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
-a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
-observations of organisms being created.
The "not falsifiable" trope is a Creationist canard from a long time ago, and is pretty funny, since Creationists have wasted a lot of hot air claiming there's evidence against evolution. If that were the case, it must be falsifiable, indeed.
quote:
The proof in favour of heliocentrism, is that we can actually go out in space and observe how the earth rotates the sun from our space probes. That's concrete, observational evidence, which common descent does not provide.
We cannot observe directly how common descent happened, we can only infer it from other evidence. Therefore, I would say heliocentrism is better supported than theories on common descent. |
Except we HAVE observed common descent. It's the repeated denial of this that is so bizarre. It's basic biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Now, we haven't directly observed the earth rotating the sun. We've taken lots of measurements and done a lot of math based on assumptions of those physical models, sure. But actually seen the earth go around it? Nope.
quote:
Not when compared to heliocentrism, and many of our other theories in chemistry, physics, and biology. I would go so far to say that this assumption in biology is one of the things holding biology back. |
Oh really? I know plenty of actual biologists who would ardently disagree with you. How is it "holding biology back?" Are you aware of the huge amount of scientific advance that has been accomplished precisely because of the acknowledgement of evolutionary mechanics?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA..._evidence17.htm
In contrast, not a single scientific breakthrough of which I'm aware has come from positing that an invisible, metaphysical being might be behind it all.
quote:
The assumption that just because one cannot detect guidance in a process does not necessarily prove that then process cannot be guided. It's an argument from silence. All one can say, according to the scientific method, is that we do know know whether the process is guided or not. |
If a process does not show any signs of being guided, the default assumption in science must be that it is not guided. Especially when one is positing an invisible, metaphysical being who has never been proven to exist as the agent of said process. If one were to say that, according to the scientific method, we don't know whether or not little green elves bing atoms together or not, do you think that would hold much water in scientific discourse?
Should we say that "random" weather patterns might be the work of Thor?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Utter bullshit. Evolution could be falsified in several ways:
-a static fossil record;
-true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
-a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
-observations of organisms being created.
|
First of all, I'll give the counterarguments.
1. A static fossil record shows that organisms are not being created, since if organisms were being created, then we'd see changes in the fossil record, wouldn't we?
A static or dynamic fossil record is not sufficient evidence in itself to show that evolution is true.
2. 'diverse lineages'
That's an interesting term. What do you call a platypus? Diverse lineages, and odd combinations of traits. What it seems to me is that the way in which lineages are established, is by relationships in the fossils. Ergo, it is impossible for a chimera to arise, as the lineages themselves are dependent on the fossil record.
3. A mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating. Yes, there are such biological mechanisms. They are a part of the human body, which causes cells to die, if they mutate beyond a specific point. Yet, I don't see evolutionists citing this as evidence contrary to evolution, rather, it is evidence that mutations must be controlled, in order to provide benefits to an organism.
4. Granted, however, don't we discover new species all the time? How would we know from our ignorance, that a species that is new, has been created, rather than simply overlooked, or undiscovered?
quote:
Now, we haven't directly observed the earth rotating the sun. We've taken lots of measurements and done a lot of math based on assumptions of those physical models, sure. But actually seen the earth go around it? Nope.
|
Um, yes we have. Space probes looking back on earth from space can show the motion of the earth around the sun.
quote:
Oh really? I know plenty of actual biologists who would ardently disagree with you. How is it "holding biology back?" Are you aware of the huge amount of scientific advance that has been accomplished precisely because of the acknowledgement of evolutionary mechanics?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FA..._evidence17.htm
In contrast, not a single scientific breakthrough of which I'm aware has come from positing that an invisible, metaphysical being might be behind it all.
|
 This is old ground. Physics at the turn of the century said that there would be hardly cause to learn anything knew, things didn't really change until people started questioning some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding classical mechanics.
Chemistry seems to just be starting with this, in exploring the nature of the atom, and how that affects theories on bonding, and everything else, in applying the knowledge of physics to chemistry, in order to gain greater understanding of why chemistry works the way that it does. Evolutionary theory is part of the classical, and deterministic model of the world, and will have to be modified, just as physics was, and chemistry will continue to be.
quote:
If a process does not show any signs of being guided, the default assumption in science must be that it is not guided. Especially when one is positing an invisible, metaphysical being who has never been proven to exist as the agent of said process. If one were to say that, according to the scientific method, we don't know whether or not little green elves bing atoms together or not, do you think that would hold much water in scientific discourse?
|
No, and for the same reason, chance holds just as much water. Science can only say so much with the evidence that they have. To say that one cannot know whether a force drives evolution, is not a shame for science, but rather a proper understanding of the limitations. To ascribe the cause to chance, when a force behind evolution has not been detected, is an assumption based upon silence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
I must , so no time to address this all now, but I do have to point out this hilariously dumb bit of "reasoning" you use:
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, I'll give the counterarguments.
1. A static fossil record shows that organisms are not being created, since if organisms were being created, then we'd see changes in the fossil record, wouldn't we?
A static or dynamic fossil record is not sufficient evidence in itself to show that evolution is true.
|
The issue is whether or not evolution is falsifiable, not whether or not Creationism would be supported by a static fossil record. You see, it is a completely false dichotomy to say that If Not Evolution, Then Creation. All such a falsification would achieve would be "Not Evolution."
But your statement is so dumb because it misses this crucial point: A static fossil record would completely contradict evolutionary theory. Without changes in organisms over time, there can be no evolution, naturally. Having an unchanging record would prove that organisms had not changed over time.
I find your assertion that a static record disproves Creation remarkably silly as well. Why would a static record contradict creation, if creation all occured simultaneously? The Genesis account is that God created all animals at the same time, in (presumably) their present state. There's no need to believe that creation is ongoing to be a Creationist. On the contrary, a static record would be strong evidence that animals were indeed all created in present form somehow.
Whether or not it was divine creation would be a point of debate, but there would be absolutely no way to say then that evolution had occured.
Say, how are those writings of Julius Caesar?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
The issue is whether or not evolution is falsifiable, not whether or not Creationism would be supported by a static fossil record. You see, it is a completely false dichotomy to say that If Not Evolution, Then Creation. All such a falsification would achieve would be "Not Evolution."
|
Granted, a static record would be a falsifiable claim against evolution, as it predicts a changing fossil record. However, the changing fossil record came first, before evolution. So it doesn't make sense to claim a static fossil record as falsifiable evidence against evolution, since the evidence was already there for a dynamic fossil record. The record suggested evolution as a theory, not the other way around, in that evolution made a prediction that could be verified and disproven.
quote:
I find your assertion that a static record disproves Creation remarkably silly as well. Why would a static record contradict creation, if creation all occured simultaneously? The Genesis account is that God created all animals at the same time, in (presumably) their present state. There's no need to believe that creation is ongoing to be a Creationist. On the contrary, a static record would be strong evidence that animals were indeed all created in present form somehow.
|
Yes, however, I never said that a static record disproves creation. I said that a dynamic record does not necessarily indicate that chance directed evolution is the only theory that works. I said the fact that the fossil record changes, is not proof in itself that evolution is directed by chance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Granted, a static record would be a falsifiable claim against evolution, as it predicts a changing fossil record. However, the changing fossil record came first, before evolution. So it doesn't make sense to claim a static fossil record as falsifiable evidence against evolution, since the evidence was already there for a dynamic fossil record. The record suggested evolution as a theory, not the other way around, in that evolution made a prediction that could be verified and disproven. |
The bolded part is not true. Darwin based his theory on observation of living organisms, not the fossil record. The fossil record at the time was quite poor. Darwin explicitley said what the fossil record should show, should his theory be correct. Lo and behold, subsequent discoveries all over the globe have affirmed his prediction. Had a static fossil record been found, then it would have disproven his prediction and been incompatible with evolution. That's falsifiability by any measure.
quote:
. I said that a dynamic record does not necessarily indicate that chance directed evolution is the only theory that works. I said the fact that the fossil record changes, is not proof in itself that evolution is directed by chance. |
That's not the point. Whether or not a dynamic record proves evolution isn't the issue--the issue was, does a static record disprove evolution? The answer is categorically, yes it would. Ergo falsifiability.
Platypus: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
There is nothing "chimerical" about the platypus beyond superficial resemblance of features. It is not "half bird, half mammal," as would be required to be a true chimera. Its apparently avian features are a product of niche evolution, and we have fossil ancestors to see this development.
Mutations: You clearly don't know how mutation works in terms of population changes. Are there limits on the degree of individual mutations? In many cases, yes. But that's not what was meant. It was about the accumulation of mutations in populations over generations. There has never been discovered any "barrier" to this. If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.
So again, should such a barrier be shown, we'd have evidence falsifying evolution.
quote:
4. Granted, however, don't we discover new species all the time? How would we know from our ignorance, that a species that is new, has been created, rather than simply overlooked, or undiscovered? |
If the invisible creator can't see fit to have these creations made in our view, why should we assume they are happening that way? We've observed new species arising, so we know evolution works. We've never observed creation ex nihlo. Now, maybe when I'm walking down a path in the woods, little creatures are magically blipping into existence just out of sight. Perhaps I just catch a glimpse of it in my peripheral vision, but *poof* it's too late to see it happen, because the creator likes to be tricksey that way. Then, just to be sneaky, the creator lets other species arise through observed evolution, because it likes to confuse and deceive us... OK, if you want to believe that, it's up to you, but until it's actually observed and proven that it occurse, there's no reason for science to give it any consideration.
quote:
This is old ground. Physics at the turn of the century said that there would be hardly cause to learn anything knew, things didn't really change until people started questioning some of the fundamental assumptions surrounding classical mechanics.
Chemistry seems to just be starting with this, in exploring the nature of the atom, and how that affects theories on bonding, and everything else, in applying the knowledge of physics to chemistry, in order to gain greater understanding of why chemistry works the way that it does. Evolutionary theory is part of the classical, and deterministic model of the world, and will have to be modified, just as physics was, and chemistry will continue to be. |
Right, because Evolution has been static as a science since Darwin.
I'm not sure why I get into these arguments with you, because you clearly are content to live on strawmen and completely ignorant misconceptions of the state of Evolutionary theory.
Evolution has undergone tremendous change since Darwin, and continues to "evolve" on it's own. It's shown to be a terrifically useful theory, and all of modern biology is predicated on it. But it hasn't remained monolithic and unchanging. Scientists are constantly fine-tuning, revising, criticizing, excising, etc. That's part of why evolution has been so successful--it is extremely flexible.
quote:
No, and for the same reason, chance holds just as much water. Science can only say so much with the evidence that they have. To say that one cannot know whether a force drives evolution, is not a shame for science, but rather a proper understanding of the limitations. To ascribe the cause to chance, when a force behind evolution has not been detected, is an assumption based upon silence. |
This is just absurd, and I'll ask again: Should we say we don't know what drives weather patterns, as Thor might be behind it all? Or Vulcan behind eruptions?
And again, "random chance" has never been said to be the "force" behind evolution. This is just your charicature of it, based on a complete lack of understanding of what is meant by "random" when it comes to mutations. We do know the forces behind evolution: mutations + selection. The forces behind those are, ultimately "random" in the sense of being unpredictable physical forces. But not "random" in the sense of being chance. And there is certainly nothing "random" about selection.
There is categorically no evidence whatsoever for an invisible metaphysical force behind anything, not just evolution. Until such a force is shown to exist, then the scientific method states that the default assumption should be that it doesn't have an effect on evolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
That is probably the biggest reason for the scientific community to not accept ID. It is because then they would have to quit doing science, or become alienists or something that would be looking for the intelligence (if they still wanted to study the origins of life).
As such, there is no reason for a scientist in the field to be ID.
Jon Miller
(maybe to study if ID is required.. but that wouldn't be something that anyone in the field would hope for)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
|
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
ID is the idea that living things exhibit traits that cannot have evolved "naturalistically". |
Well there you go again mixing jargon. If I believe that god created the world and is omnicient, then all nature is is gods computer program following the course it was programed to do.
And of course we can even decetralize it. He just created the set up and then let things run as they will, but evolution and the natural mechanisms that it follows are still gods design.
It all depends on how far you and what direction you want to take it. Science will always lose here however because faith requires no facts, and until it can prove other wise ID is a valid hypothesis waiting for an experiment, like so many others.
But irregardless, a "god is in the gaps" approach is designed to exploit the very weakness, or strength as you may see it, that as Boris's source stated about science. There "are no absolute certainties."
And on another line, no proof that evolution is based on chance exists. What is proven is that organisms evolve over time, the widely accepted as fact part has nothing to do with the impetus of such change.
But the whole debate is stupid anways, because you cannot prove religion scientifically, they are two different worlds that for some reason people pit against each other for no good reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
The bolded part is not true. Darwin based his theory on observation of living organisms, not the fossil record. The fossil record at the time was quite poor.
|
I would challenge whether the fossil record was so poor as to prevent folks from establishing that the record did not show changes. At the time, there had been dinosaur fossils found, before the origin of species was written and published, and these bones were unlike anything that currently walked the earth. 1824, Buckland named the first genus of dinosaurs, which is before the origins of species.
quote:
There is nothing "chimerical" about the platypus beyond superficial resemblance of features. It is not "half bird, half mammal," as would be required to be a true chimera. Its apparently avian features are a product of niche evolution, and we have fossil ancestors to see this development.
|
So, my question, is anything then qualified as a chimera. That's the problem with defining it based upon lineage, since lineage is how the relationship between species is determined. The platypus would be evidence in itself that there is a link between birds and mammals, and hence, would automatically cease to be a chimera.
quote:
You clearly don't know how mutation works in terms of population changes. Are there limits on the degree of individual mutations? In many cases, yes. But that's not what was meant. It was about the accumulation of mutations in populations over generations.
|
You never stated the word 'population' until now. If you are referring to mutations accumulated over time, then I suggest you refer to such. I'm not a mindreader Boris.
Mutations accumulated over time, are the sum of the individual mutations. The fact that the individual mutations are checked, acts as a check on the accumulation of mutations.
quote:
There has never been discovered any "barrier" to this. If morphology can be shown to "increase" on even the smallest level, then over larger time periods, there would be no qualitative barrier to larger changes.
|
A ball dropped in air faces air resistance. The same is true of mutations over time, in that while the mutations continue, there are still limitations to how quickly they can happen. That mutations are checked, is a significant barrier, the same way that air is a barrier to motion.
quote:
OK, if you want to believe that, it's up to you, but until it's actually observed and proven that it occurse, there's no reason for science to give it any consideration.
|
Ex nihilio? From the earth is not from nothing, Boris. From dust you are, and to dust you will return. Even the creationists don't claim that creation comes from nothing.
Secondly, the same standard applies to evolution. We don't observe monkeys turning into people, so how can we be sure that men used to be monkeys?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Evolution has undergone tremendous change since Darwin, and continues to "evolve" on it's own. It's shown to be a terrifically useful theory, and all of modern biology is predicated on it. But it hasn't remained monolithic and unchanging. Scientists are constantly fine-tuning, revising, criticizing, excising, etc. That's part of why evolution has been so successful--it is extremely flexible.
|
True, which is why it causes problems, since the theory needs to be modified beyond all recognition in order to fit in with what we know. Epicycle after epicycle is being added to make it more 'flexible', yet no one questions whether the fault is in the model, not in the precision.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2005 08:33
Do you have flat-earther friends, by any chance? It'd further increase the entertainment from such threads 
|