- Asks for evidence of transitional fossils, then says that they are not transitional fossils by his own estimate because he cannot conceive of them to be. An argument by incredulity.
- Refuses to define complexity, says it is a trap, then walks into that trap.
- Mistakes abiogenesis for evolution despite having been corrected on that point 8 times now (counting!)
- Claims he has no evidence for his position, just faith, and only knows that he knows evolution not to be true, then claims that 'we' see fully formed species forming out of nowhere. Refuses to provide evidence for this claim.
- Asks people to tell him 'how evolution DID happen, not how it COULD' and then says he will only accept an answer which explains how abiogenesis happened because that is how HE defines evolution. If you were to explain how evolution happened the way evolution is actually described, you would fail his 'test.'
- Adds incredulity to his repartee by saying (literally, as a man who once parroted Behe) "you aren't skeptical, like me"
- Says large-scale evolution can't be created in a lab, like that's an efficient defense of his arguments from ignorance. Know what else we can't re-create in a lab? Nearly all geologic phenomena. I guess we have to throw out plate tectonics as well since it must only be conceivably possible to be believed.
- gives the perfect example of cyclical illogic: A isn't transitional species because transitional species don't exist, transitional species don't exist because I deny evolution from the beginning. Fundamentally incurious self-defense.
- Turns his own illogic on transitional fossils in on itself to attempt to define the holes in HIS own logic as compositional fallacy on the part of others.
- Talks about inconsistencies in rock dating. It would make a great point if it were capable of debunking strata relative ages, but this is evidence, and as Resh has pointed out multiple times before, he isn't in the business of using evidence, he's just in the business of saying something that he assumes is true and then not backing it up. Let's see where that goes, yeah?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we can learn to be more and more eloquent, and present better and better arguments, in a way that most of the "undecided" bunch that follows this discussion might find useful for their own education.
quote:I've read that sometimes things are tautologies simply because they are self evidently true.
This is not what the word "tautology" means.
quote:My only request to you all is that you recognize that you are not privy to some special knowledge that those of us who do not believe the same are ignorant of.
But that is precisely the case, Resh. We are privy to information, and you are ignorant. We are trying to give you that information and thus make you less ignorant, but you're actually complaining about our attempts to help you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
If we can't put our ideas and knowledge about a subject into words then we probably don't understand the subject very well.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Allow some alternate views to be presented, for they may be valid (even in the sphere of science.) And open your mind to some possibilities that a naturalistic worldview does not allow.
But that's not science, for a raft of reasons that we've already covered in other threads.
This is probably a good time to quote Philip Johnson, DI fellow, who is described both inside and outside the ID movement as the "father of Intelligent Design" on what he thinks about the scientific explanatory power of intelligent design and the appropriateness of teaching it as evolution's equal.
quote:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
And, should those ID scientists actually do science, other scientists will welcome them at the table. We're all still waiting...
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Since large-scale Evolution cannot be recreated in a Lab ---and I'm sure you would all admit that is true--- it seems that the theory holds a place in the scientific story of creation as one that only must be conceivably possible in order to be believed. This relegates it to a position no higher on the scale of subjective truth than God.
Why is it necessary to recreate it in a lab? We can observe it directly in the fossil record. "Observable" basically means anything that can be measured.
Maybe we can focus this debate a little more. If we assume that our datings techniques are correct, then does the fossil record provide significant evidence for macroevolution? I don't think you could argue that it doesn't because there is no other rational way to explain why transitional forms all appear in order with the proper ages. The fossil record does not show HOW macroevolution occurs, but it definitely shows that it DOES occur.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: In Australia, everyone of my generation was taught 'RE' (religious education) from kindergarten until year 7 in all schools, public or private. This was a class taught weekly, alongside all the other regular subjects.
Unfortunately I have to admit to not being able to find data on Australian acceptance of evolution.
Considering that students had the option of taking an alternative class (at the school I attended in Canberra for 6 weeks, it was me and a couple dozen other kids), I doubt there is any relationship. The class was only taken by those whose parents wanted them there, neh?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously?
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it is more than would be accomplished by not taking resh seriously.
quote:We are privy to information, and you are ignorant. We are trying to give you that information and thus make you less ignorant, but you're actually complaining about our attempts to help you.
So why do you, as an atheist, complain about Christian attempts to "make you less ignorant" about the information that they believe they are privy to?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So why do you, as an atheist, complain about Christian attempts to "make you less ignorant" about the information that they believe they are privy to?
As an atheist, I don't complain about it. I may complain if it's the same argument I've heard many times in the past, but I'll still listen. I'll debate and argue and discuss.
If the evidence points to your information being true, I'll jump right on board.
I can only speak for myself, of course.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't talking about recruitment drives. I was refering to when people make claims about the truth of their religious views on this forum and rather than responding along the lines of "Thank you for informing me about these facts I wasn't privy to", you instead react like Resh is responding now. My question is why do you react that way, rejecting the so-called "help", instead of simply accepting the "help" of the people who are "informing" you?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I wasn't talking about recruitment drives. I was refering to when people make claims about the truth of their religious views on this forum and rather than responding along the lines of "Thank you for informing me about these facts I wasn't privy to", you instead react like Resh is responding now. My question is why do you react that way, instead of simply accepting the "help" of the people who are "informing" you?
I haven't seen anyone be snarky when a christian was giving them an actual fact, like "Mormon doctrine says this about that subject", or "documents shows that some early Christians believed this".
But surely you see the difference beween a statement like this:
"The human genes SAMD9 and SAMD9L are right next to each other on the chromosome, and are 58% identical and 72% similar. This is what we would expect to see if there had been one gene in the ancestral genome, which was then duplicated, and subsequently both mutated differently. Macaques and chimps also have both genes. Mice, rats, cows, dogs, etc have only have one, and their gene is more similar to SAMD9L than to SAMD9. This is what we would expect if the duplication originated in an organism that was an ancestor to all primates, but not an ancestor to the other groups of mammals.
And this statement:
"Jesus is real, I just know it".
The first statement is just cold fact. If you questioned it, you could order DNA and do the sequencing yourself. Or every person on this baord can go to ensembl, look up the genes, get the sequences, and BLAST them themselves. No need to take my opinion on the matter at all. Anyone on this board could have collected that information for themselves, and taught anyone else who asked them exactly how to do it themselves.
Can you say any of the above about the second statement?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've taken science courses in college, but it is definitely not true that I am capable of sequencing DNA myself. I am not a scientist. I, like the vast majority of people, really DO need to take somebody else's opinion on the matter.
It should be noted that this is exactly what folks are expecting Resh to do: Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA. People are expecting Resh to simply trust their claims that somebody out there did do this stuff, and they did it correct, and they correctly interpreted the results, and that that interpretation supports Evolution and not Creationism. I do not think anyone should find it surprising or irrational for Resh to refuse to have faith in such a claim, given that it conflicts with other authorities that Resh seems to trust more than just some people Resh knows on an online forum.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA.
Actually, in several prior conversations, people have recommended that Resh do exactly this if he has such a passionate interest in the subject. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
And it seems to me that expecting Resh to go out and, if not get a PhD, at least do some very basic research on the subject before spouting off about it, is exactly what folks have been suggesting. Since he is clearly unwilling to do so, we really don't have any other choice than to try to communicate the facts to him ourselves. All right, I guess we could ignore him, but as several people already noted earlier, trying to teach someone as obstinate and aggressively ignorant as Resh is at least somewhat useful for improving our own writing.
As for "trusting claims that somebody out there did do this stuff," well... if you can't accept that, then god forbid you ever use any modern technology at all. It's all based on people taking results presented by other people and using them as a foundation for further study and refinement. If Resh really can't trust scientists to the extent that he refuses any evidence presented to him unless the experiment is done directly in front of his face, then he should damn well not be driving cars, taking medication, or even typing his posts onto the Interwebs. Because all of that was only made possible by the painstaking work of scientists, publishing their work in exactly the manner that evolutionary biologists do, and undergoing the exact same level of scrutiny.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
quote:If Resh really can't trust scientists to the extent that he refuses any evidence presented to him unless the experiment is done directly in front of his face, then he should damn well not be driving cars, taking medication, or even typing his posts onto the Interwebs.
You don't really need to trust scientists in order to use most technology, unless you are one of the first users. Usually, for instance, you can just look to thousands of other drivers to see that their car did not blow up when they turned the key, and infer that yours won't either. Now, if a scientist gave you a pill that nobody had ever taken before, but the scientist told you he was confident it would not have any adverse effects, would you trust that scientist? Some would but some would not.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
Except you CAN go and learn those things for yourself. Until Pastwatch is created, we can't confirm anything the Bible says that isn't historically verifiable.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax: You're edging slowly into conspiracy theory territory. Those databases are usually maintained by publically funded organizations such as the US National Institute of Health, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and so forth.
These resources are used by thousands of scientists everyday of all kinds. New sequences are input every day by scientists working on various sequencing projects and some big projects such as the Human Genome Project are very visible and even include private sector competitors such as Celera which pretty much duplicated much of the work of the public project (multiple times by now).
In order for those databases to be seeded with data that fakes evolution, you would need to organise multiple governments into creating fake data, somehow convince private companies into doing the same, and then the whole thing would messed up if there was ever a big discrepancy between a newly sequenced sequence and the existing copies in the database. Additionally, many companies and researchers also need to sequence proteins and from there, it is a simple task to extrapolate back to the DNA sequence(s... the mapping is not unique of course) and double check. In fact, this step is required for tasks such as homology protein modelling.
In short, the level of organization and the number of people involved required in order to fake the data in the databases in order to fake proof of evolution would be by far outclass most of the conspiracy theories even shown on "The X-Files."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't need to sequence it yourself, Tres. As swbarnes said, you can very easily look up all the relevant sequences on ensembl (a free, openly available archive of genetic sequence data- so much for the myth of the exclusivist scientist, incidentally). And there are similarly free programs available online to compare them for similarity.
Yes, but that only helps insofar as you trust those databases and programs, and trust your own ability to interpret them. In the same way you could simply go to the Bible and look up that Jesus exists - but that too depends entirely on how much you trust the Bible.
Oh please. Unlike the Bible, I can go and re-sequence any of the sequences available on ensembl to make sure they are correct. In fact, biologists are constantly checking and rechecking (and updating when necessary) to make sure our databases maintain the highest possible accuracy. I trust it because the very nature of scientific enterprise makes it extremely difficult to get away with falsifying data- in other words, you can't just say anything and expect to get away with it, because you will be torn to shreds. Can you honestly say that any religious text undergoes the same level of scrutiny?
Edit: Looks like Mucus has already made my point, and more eloquently to boot. Thanks man.
quote:You don't really need to trust scientists in order to use most technology, unless you are one of the first users. Usually, for instance, you can just look to thousands of other drivers to see that their car did not blow up when they turned the key, and infer that yours won't either. Now, if a scientist gave you a pill that nobody had ever taken before, but the scientist told you he was confident it would not have any adverse effects, would you trust that scientist? Some would but some would not. [/qb]
Do you really not get it? By looking at all those other drivers, you are in fact applying exactly the same logic as the scientists who originally figured out the physical and chemical principles required to build the car in the first place. It's ALL inductive reasoning.
As for the pill, if that scientist has gone through all the usual channels- i.e. studied the effects of the active ingredient in vivo and in vitro, demonstrated its efficacy and tested for potential risks in mouse and primate models (and naturally, publishing all of these results in peer-reviewed journals along the way), and then passed the necessary screening process for human testing, absolutely I would. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that scientists just pull new medications out of thin air, and then promptly try them out on human subjects without any prior study.
As a side note: the fact that using mouse and primate models works at all (and believe me, it works very well) is in itself further confirmation of the theory of evolution. There would be absolutely no point in using such model organisms in medical research if we didn't share common ancestry with them- i.e. if evolution had not occurred.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, what do you (by you, I mean any person currently responding to resh) hope to accomplish by taking resh seriously? Certainly it should be clear by now that his is an illogically closed mind incapable or unwilling to comprehend what you say to him?
The longer he talks, the more work he does for others in helping destroy the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement and advancing the credibility of evolutionary theory.
He is literally so impossibly bad at debate and logic that he galvanizes people against his hackery and compels people to give, frequently, more and more well-worded and compelling answers to even the most steadfast evolutionary theory denial.
In addition, he's a cautionary tale for reasonable folk who don't believe in evolution but would like to have open and logical discussion about it; he makes all the mistakes that creationists used to make constantly and he's helping remind everyone why you sound like a knuckle-dragger when you say something like "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" or "we haven't observed speciation" or "there are no transitional fossils" or "behe was right."
Besides, one doesn't have to take him seriously just by replying to him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I know it, Its true. You should believe it too." is not an argument.
Two people meet. One says Jesus. One says Allah. There are three ways to decide who is right. You can both agree to discuss the facts in a logically consistent manner so that some decision could be made. You can wait until you both die, and see who's right. Or you can kill the idea that disagrees with yours. Since the other doesn't agree with you, and won't change his mind, well we must kill him in order to kill the idea.
Resh says "God, not Evolution." There is nothing we can say that will make him change his mind. Most of us are content to let him continue believing that until he meets God and is either proven right, or wrong.
But Resh goes on to demand that we deny science in favor of his faith. He is demanding that we change our mind, and though he sounds like he wants to discuss this in a logically consistent manner, instead he just keeps telling us he's right, we are wrong, and we must accept it.
Volume is not a way to win a debate.
At least we haven't yet dropped to the level of murdering those who don't convert.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except you CAN go and learn those things for yourself. Until Pastwatch is created, we can't confirm anything the Bible says that isn't historically verifiable.
Again, no I can't. I lack the knowledge and resources to sequence DNA. I assume Resh, and most other people, do too.
quote:In order for those databases to be seeded with data that fakes evolution, you would need to organise multiple governments into creating fake data, somehow convince private companies into doing the same, and then the whole thing would messed up if there was ever a big discrepancy between a newly sequenced sequence and the existing copies in the database. Additionally, many companies and researchers also need to sequence proteins and from there, it is a simple task to extrapolate back to the DNA sequence(s... the mapping is not unique of course) and double check. In fact, this step is required for tasks such as homology protein modelling.
It really wouldn't take a conspiracy. All it would take is for scientists as a community to be fundamentally wrong in some significant but consistent way that would alter all their results or their interpretation of their results.
But besides that, you are skipping over what is probably the more important half of why most people could not trust things they'd learn from such a database: Because it is easily possible to misunderstand what the data given means. To a person who is not well-versed in genetics, such data is probably almost entirely meaningless as evidence, no matter how accurate the data might be. To such a person, they really do have to trust some scientist to tell them what it means.
quote:In fact, biologists are constantly checking and rechecking (and updating when necessary) to make sure our databases maintain the highest possible accuracy. I trust it because the very nature of scientific enterprise makes it extremely difficult to get away with falsifying data- in other words, you can't just say anything and expect to get away with it, because you will be torn to shreds. Can you honestly say that any religious text undergoes the same level of scrutiny?
Yes, I'm fairly sure the Bible has undergone much more scrutiny - after all, it has existed for 2,000 years as one of the most read, most scrutinized, and most religiously important texts in the world. It has been studied not just by Christians, but people of many religions and many cultures, some of whom are very very intent on proving it false.
There is one significant difference about the scrutiny of the Bible though - after the first few centuries of scrutiny, people stopped allowing it to be altered based on that scrutiny. Infer from that what you will....
quote:The longer he talks, the more work he does for others in helping destroy the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement and advancing the credibility of evolutionary theory.
Possibly so. That's why I think it is a good idea to take all theories seriously - because I think taking them seriously helps you make more clear the truth of true theories and the wrongness of false theories. Whereas you learn nothing by not taking them seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QB] I've taken science courses in college, but it is definitely not true that I am capable of sequencing DNA myself. I am not a scientist. I, like the vast majority of people, really DO need to take somebody else's opinion on the matter.
Sigh.
First of all, you don't need a lab to look in ensembl. You need an internet connection and a browser. And you obviously have those. You just go to www.ensembl.org, search for SAMD9 and SAMD9L in humans. From there, you can jump to the orthologs in other organisms, and you can get the protein sequence.
Second, relying on the opinion of experts is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in this case. And the consensus of virtaully all biologists is that evolution is real.
quote:It should be noted that this is exactly what folks are expecting Resh to do: Nobody has told Resh to go out and get a Ph.D. in genetics in order to study DNA.
Well, yes. If a person thinks that all the experts are wrong about something, and wishes to be taken seriously, and not as a crackpot, he needs to demonstrate that he too is an expert.
If someone went into your workplace, and told you that everything you were doing was totally wrong, and that your conclusions were widly unfounded, would you pay attention to this person if they demonstrated that they knew less about your work than the intern who started last week?
quote:People are expecting Resh to simply trust their claims that somebody out there did do this stuff
,
Why does Resh have to trust the the similarity between SAMD9 and SAMD9L is what I said? He can look it up himself.
Why does he have to trust when someone says the bacteria evolved the ability to to diget nylon? He can read the paper himself.
Why does he have to trust us when we say that people have done many studies on the evolution of the eye? He can read the papers himself.
Resh can read a talkorigin link, and then go to the end notes, and read the peer-reviewed papers that it cites.
The problem is, if Resh can't intelligently read the papers, then he has no business saying that he understand biology better than the people who can. But that's pretty much his argument.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly we have to trust something. We can't all test that the food we eat is safe and healthy, we can't personally test that gravity will work everywhere on earth, we can't test that germs are actually responsible for our sickness instead of unbalanced humors or evil spirits.
We can trust science to tell us these things, because it's basically unbiased as it's practiced by people all over the world with widely different ideals and beliefs. We DO trust science to tell us all sorts of things every day, without ever questioning.
Why does it make sense to blindly believe when science tells us that we should take an antibiotic to keep an infected limb from needing amputation, even though we've never seen a germ or personally tested the effect and safety of the medicine?
If we should doubt all the science behind evolutionary theory, shouldn't we doubt the science which effects our daily lives even MORE?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We DO trust science to tell us all sorts of things every day, without ever questioning.
Actually, we question science all the time. It's one of the reasons why it produces a useful, measurable result in many practical fields.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, that science itself questions constantly, but when science comes up with a very well-established answer, common people don't demand to see it in action in order to believe it. We don't all go out and test antibiotics on bacteria and perform individual Stage 3 clinical trials before we take our penicillin.
We trust that other people have done ample research and know what they're talking about, especially when so many people agree on the same answers and have so much backing evidence to show the validity of their findings.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Rivka - primary school was a long time ago for me
IIRC, you're only slightly older than I. The "summer" I was in Australia was 1982.
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: Also, I'd imagine you'd have a larger attendance at RE in SE Queensland than in Canberra!
I have very little knowledge of the relative concentrations of religiosity in Oz. IIRC, other than the recent immigrants from <the island nation I cannot remember the name of> and me, almost everybody took the religion class. (At least until the daughter of the new Israel consul joined the class. But she and I only overlapped for a week or two.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It really wouldn't take a conspiracy. All it would take is for scientists as a community to be fundamentally wrong in some significant but consistent way that would alter all their results or their interpretation of their results.
Incorrect. You're slowly edging your way past conspiracy theory to parts beyond. You're really barking up the wrong tree here. It is almost as if you're imagining that a bunch of scientists are taking pieces of people, putting them into huge optical microscopes and then writing down the sequences as they see it.
Instead, scientists have to use many different ways of measuring each of DNA sequences, RNA sequences, and protein sequences using completely different techniques. Furthermore, there is no interpretation, we are at the stage where most of the work is done in a purely automated fashion with no human intervention. In addition, the actual sequences are used in developing drugs and understanding disease. The simplest error and mismatch between the database sequences and the real sequences in a person could mean the difference between a drug that works and a drug that kills.
As an analogy, imagine that you have a building under construction. Every day while it is being built, you go there and you find a new way of measuring the height. Maybe one day you use a really big ruler, maybe one day you use a small ruler and repeatedly put it end to end all the way down, maybe another day you throw a ball down and measure the time it takes to hit the ground and solve based on the force of gravity, maybe another day you shoot a laser at a mirror on the ground and measure based on the speed of light, then another day you check how many girders of steel were required and extrapolate.
At the end of the entire process, you collect all the measurements. This is data. This is what goes in the database. When it comes to modern sequence databases, it is as if all of those methods of measurements came to the same measurement +- a few cm.
Now evolution is the interpretation of that data. Maybe you want to find out if that building is too tall to be stable, that is the interpretation and that is at least debatable to some extent in the details.
See, as insane as a conspiracy involving all the world's scientists is to fake data *for* evolution, it is still more likely than there being a systematic way in which all the methods of measurements are flawed but exactly in the same way, and *randomly* in a way that allows faking evolution.
It is as if you went back to all those different methods of measuring the height of a building and instead of finding that same measurement +- a few cm, you found a billion pink fairies staring back at you and a beer of Smirnoff where the building was, yet still being able to climb up to the top of the building and grab a cup of coffee from your penthouse suite.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should like to thank Reshpeckobiggle for engaging in debate on this thread.
I could quibble about your debate tactics/rehetoric, but I'll just leave this a positive post.
With one small proviso: randomness, complexity, and information all have technical definitions that are more nuanced than their common usages. It's easy to misinterpret them in scientific debates, which is one reason why some (including me) want the specific definitions you use for these terms. It's necessary to facilitate communication.
Plus, it's a trap. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, your welcome, Morbo. I wish I was technically-minded enough to know how to define those terms in such a way that I would not have to constantly redefine them in order to remain coherent (to myself, at the very least.)
Those really important, vital questions, megabyte? I'm sorry, I forgot what they were. I vaguely remember something about having to define my positions and my understanding of certain things, presumably so I could be led by the hand into another rhetorical dead-end. That is obviously not my intention on this thread; I have since come to realize that defending why I disbelieve Evolution is not only futile when accosted from a half-dozen different experts with a dozen separate angles apiece (something I willingly bring upon myself; I'm not looking for sympathy), but is also completely unnecessary. I'm not trying to convince any of you, I am inviting you to convince me, the ultimate skeptic of Evolution. If you can make inroads with me, then you have a chance with anybody.
A quibble: Tarrsk: "At least do some very basic research on the subject before spouting off about it."
Have I displayed a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory? This statement is evidence of the belief that no one who doubts the theory could possibly understand it as well; understanding implies belief, does it not?
Mucus, the methods of measurement are based on the theory they measure.
"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow..." -Pierre Teilhard.
This is the mindset of those studying, testing, developing, perfecting it. Data is interpreted according to the Law of Evolution. This is not a conspiracy. This is the way science operates. Much is accomplished when a global community of scientists operate according to a set understanding of the universe, and with a common goal in mind. But sometimes, they're just wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are you saying that scientific methods of measurement are reliant on the theories that they happen to confirm and that without the theory, the actual *data* that the measurement method creates is invalid?
So say I have a ruler and a watch. I drop an apple, measure the time it takes to drop and how far it drops. Then I realise, "Whoa this data could be used to support Newton's laws of motion!"
Does that mean that the *actual measurements* are invalid if the theory of gravity happens to be augmented by relativity many years later? Does that mean that if I look at the ruler again, I'll get a different result simply because I have a new theory in my head? Thats just bizarre.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a rhetorical trick so common as to be universal. "Just compare Evolution to Gravity. People know gravity is real, so if you force them to compare the two, they'll see why they are both Laws of nature." Where is your ruler and stopwatch in Evolution? Where is your falling apple?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I googled Pierre Teilhard. If you believe that somehow a Jesuit Priest's one quote gave marching orders to scientists around the world, then my friend, you are talking "Conspiracy".
The above quote is theological in tone, not the cautious accurate tone used by science.
Tres--You compared the ongoing work of scientists studying the DNA research done with the study done for thousands of years done on the bible.
May I point out 3 big differences...
1) If two DNA scientists have a dispute over findings it almost never results in one group killing another.
2) The scientists study not only what the data represents, but also they study how accurate and true the data itself. People of faith study what the bible means in current and past times, not how accurate or true it is.
3)If the source of a scientists data is flawed, he can get more DNA. Not many faiths allow you to get more "Word of God" when needed.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Have I displayed a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory?
Actually, you have. When you insist that evolution is just random events, and that there is no way randomness will ever build complexity, you aren't talking about evolution at all.
Randomness plus selection (which you keep ignoring) is entirely capable of building complexity.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More on those term defintions from me later.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, your welcome, Morbo. I wish I was technically-minded enough to know how to define those terms in such a way that I would not have to constantly redefine them in order to remain coherent (to myself, at the very least.)
[...cut...]
Mucus, the methods of measurement are based on the theory they measure.
"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems must henceforth bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow..." -Pierre Teilhard.
This is the mindset of those studying, testing, developing, perfecting it. Data is interpreted according to the Law of Evolution. This is not a conspiracy. This is the way science operates. Much is accomplished when a global community of scientists operate according to a set understanding of the universe, and with a common goal in mind. But sometimes, they're just wrong.
That is not the mindset of every biologist and other scientists studying evolution. It may be the mindset of a subset.
Just as a subset of Christians believe evolution is a key part of Satan's master plan, with the willing participation of scientists.
Also, Teilhard was a philosopher as well as a scientist, and his writings overlapped and mixed these subjects. Personally I think his vision of the universe is beautiful and awe-inspiring, whether or not it's true. Even pipe-dreams have their place.
edit: Also, from what little I've gleaned about Teilhard via Julian May's and Dan Simmons' novels, Teilhard's view of evolution became inextricably wrapped up with his faith in God. He saw an inevitable progression from dumb matter to living beings to sentient beings culminating in the Omega Point (possibly = to God?) All biologists do not agree with this.
posted
Dan, Yes, he was a Jesuit Priest, but he was quite unorthodox. Particularly in his devout acceptance of Evolution as the guiding force behind our existence. I just used that quote because of its eloquence. I do think it is representative of the underlying philosophy behind science's search for truth.
I don't think Tresopax's comparison is entirely adequate, although for different reasons. If two scientists argue over genetics, there may not be wars, but if Darwinism is carried out to what someone may consider its logical end, eugenics may result (have resulted, and may again in the future when gene manipulation is perfected a la Gattica.) Also, people do study the accuracy of the Bible, be it its historical, prophetic, or philosophical accuracy. Your third point is mostly correct, although continuing interpretations and implications of the Word are allowed (for the Bible, not necessarily certain other holy books.
Mighty Cow, why don't you read the first two posts on page three. Although I certainly hit on it many other times, those two should be sufficient. I then ask that you admit you are wholly wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Where is your ruler and stopwatch in Evolution? Where is your falling apple?
The ruler and stopwatch would be Edman degradation or mass spectrometry based protein sequencing and shotgun DNA sequencing. The apple would be the human, mouse, E.coli, and wheat genomes and proteomes (for a start).
Now please tell us how those methods of measurements would change what measurements they would return if we had a different theory other than evolution.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To address your statement itself, does Evolution occur without randomness? If Naturalism is true, is there anything in this universe that is not the result of chance processes? Doesn't a universe without purpose imply that even Natural Selection is the product of chance occurrences? Are not our own actions just the result of random interactions between molecules?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If two scientists argue over genetics, there may not be wars, but if Darwinism is carried out to what someone may consider its logical end, eugenics may result (have resulted, and may again in the future when gene manipulation is perfected a la Gattica.)
Actually no, that would be Intelligent Design. Evolution describes undirected selection. You propose selection at the hands of an intelligent agent which is taking advantage of our understanding of the effects of selective breeding (which were pretty well understood long before Darwin) to achieve a desired end.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you use a layman's argument when arguing with a layman? If you think I'm impressed enough by jargon that I'm just going to concede defeat, you're wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ok, you added something that is valid. Supposing we are just talking about Evolution and not the nature of the universe. If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required? This isn't really my argument anyway. If yo believe that Evolution occurred, but as the result of some purpose, then I won't argue. It may very well be what happened. My beef is with Naturalism as a whole, and Evolution as the story of how this all happened without any force outside of the material universe.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ruler => DNA sequencing Stopwatch => protein sequencing Apple => genomes and proteomes of bacteria, plants, mice, and humans
Each of those terms either before or now are searchable in Wikipedia by the way
Now please tell us how those methods of measurements would change what measurements they would return if we had a different theory other than evolution.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are allowing for the possibility of of purpose in the universe, then why is a Naturalistic explanation required?
It's not required, but it fits the data better than any other explanation. If you want to give God credit for the random mutations and say, essentially, that God directed evolution, that's not inconsistent with the theory, it just isn't a necessary addition as it provides no additional explanatory power. We don't find better drugs to combat virii if we assume that their resistance to previous drugs was directed by God.
Evolution says that (apparently) random mutations occurred and were selected for. It seems to be quite possible *without* any external force, but it doesn't explicitly exclude external force.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
