Genetics and evolution

[CrimsonNan]

JT666 said:

Please understand, I am NOT attacking religion. I am saying that continuing to apply similar tests to both science and religion is not likely to accomplish anything beyond extending this thread by several more pages.

******************

Several more pages - hahahahaha - so what else is new???? Twenty four pages already. What difference does a "few" more make? :biggrin:

 

[CrimsonNan]

oops...I should have said 25 pages :biggrin:

 

[NYBamaFan]

and the counterpoint was that these interpretations come under constant scrutiny, limiting bias

I know that scientists attempt to limit their bias, but it is there. Just as pollsters try to limit their bias, yet it appears in their results.

 

[blackumbrella]

In addition, no one here is trying to prove scientifically that God exists. We are merely trying to show that there are frameworks, other than the evolutionary framework, through which the evidence can be interpreted.

sure, but the second sentence also assumes that a over a century's worth of smart people who've dedicated their lives' work to scientific investigation are too dense to entertain the framework you endorse, a framework they were surely familiar with since it's been around for 2k years. is it a valid interpretation to say

God Can Make The World Appear However He Wants. Ask The Scientists Who Have Forgtten Him. It Is Up To You To Have Faith To Believe.

? yes it's valid. but talk about your vague terminology! let's see what else we can do with that framework:
God: Can Make The World Appear However He Wants
Aliens: Can Make The World Appear However tHey Want
Woolyboogers: Can Make The World Appear However they Want
anything we can imagine that's omnipotent that may or may not exist bc there's no evidence at all suggesting that it does bc leaving no evidence of itself is within the capabilities of something omnipotent: Can Make The World Appear However He Wants

 

[blackumbrella]

I know that scientists attempt to limit their bias, but it is there. Just as pollsters try to limit their bias, yet it appears in their results.

bias kept in check v. unchecked bias.

 

[jthomas666]

jt, bias is inherent in science from methodology, at least on a single hypothesis scale. Hypothesis testing is to construct a test to prove a hypothesis, and one expects the outcome to prove the hypothesis. The expectation of an outcome is a bias.

You are oversimplifying, not to mention assuming that science is more concerned with being right than finding the truth. Hypothesis testing, by definition, seeks to TEST the hypothesis.

If I hold out a hammer and let it go, I expect that the hammer will fall. According to you, that means I'm biased towards the theory of gravity.

According to me, I've seen enough things fall when released to have a reasonable expectation that the hammer is going to fall.

 

[blackumbrella]

Evolution as generally understood by most people is not merely a change over time/generations, but an increase in complexity. A simple single-celled organism gave rise to a multi-celled organism which divided off to make different organisms, (plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, etc.) eventually producing the complex working of human beings through a series of random mutations and natural selection.

This seems key too me. Because if this WAS in fact what has and is happening all around us both in the animal and plant kingdom then it would be easily observable with the technology available and under aou current understanding of the genetic code. In fact it would be as observable as nature itself. It would be evident everywhere it was looked for. I ask fo an example and I get "wheat bread".

'our current understanding of the genetic code'--you mean the understanding gleaned from the work of scientists a vast vast majority of whom are stupid enough to still believe in and base their work on evolutionary principles!? that's the sort of prooftexting i'm talking about.

 

[TexasBama]

You are oversimplifying, not to mention assuming that science is more concerned with being right than finding the truth. Hypothesis testing, by definition, seeks to TEST the hypothesis.

If I hold out a hammer and let it go, I expect that the hammer will fall. According to you, that means I'm biased towards the theory of gravity.

According to me, I've seen enough things fall when released to have a reasonable expectation that the hammer is going to fall.

Your example's not a good one - BTW, its Newton' Law of Gravitation, or if you choose, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that describes you and your hammer. There's no such thing as a per se theory of gravity that I'm aware of.

In testing a hypothesis, there is an expected outcome. People take ownership, and personalize their theories, even to the point of minimizing implicit observation. Heck, Bohr & Einstein had their arguments; the point is, if people are involved, there's gonna be some kind of bias. Its only human nature.

 

[blackumbrella]

Your example's not a good one - BTW, its Newton' Law of Gravitation, or if you choose, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that describes you and your hammer. There's no such thing as a per se theory of gravity that I'm aware of.

In testing a hypothesis, there is an expected outcome. People take ownership, and personalize their theories, even to the point of minimizing implicit observation. Heck, Bohr & Einstein had their arguments; the point is, if people are involved, there's gonna be some kind of bias. Its only human nature.

yes, but scientists love proving one another wrong, exposing their 'biases' etc. doesn't it seem remarkable that after 100+ years of straight cage match, the basic ideas of evolution still prevail?

 

[jthomas666]

Your example's not a good one - BTW, its Newton' Law of Gravitation, or if you choose, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that describes you and your hammer. There's no such thing as a per se theory of gravity that I'm aware of.

Gravity is still very much a theory, as you yourself acknowledge in your reference to Einstein. Newton's initial equations were quite accurate (but not perfect--they were revised through testing). We know that gravity is present, but we still do not fully understand how it works.

Newton's Laws are the three laws of motion--a body at rest tends to remain at rest, etc.

In testing a hypothesis, there is an expected outcome. People take ownership, and personalize their theories, even to the point of minimizing implicit observation. Heck, Bohr & Einstein had their arguments; the point is, if people are involved, there's gonna be some kind of bias. Its only human nature.

But both Bohr and Einstein were using the same basic tools and methods; that made it easier (relatively) to identify the differences in their underlying assumptions (which I'm guessing roughly correspond to what you are calling bias). And because they could then be judged on more or less an equal footing, it was possible to determine who was right and who was wrong.

Belief in creation and evolutionary theory cannot be compared in such a manner, because religion and science are not the same fields, a point I made back when this thread began during the Reagan administration.

If you want to say that your belief in creation prevents you from considering evolution, that's fine. Personally, I have no trouble reconciling the two.

 

[bamabake]

'our current understanding of the genetic code'--you mean the understanding gleaned from the work of scientists a vast vast majority of whom are stupid enough to still believe in and base their work on evolutionary principles!? that's the sort of prooftexting i'm talking about.

Obviously my post was too simply stated for you. I WILL concede that the curent CONVENTIONAL wisdom on the matter is the status quo. I am also telling you that in the last 10 years especially NEW information has been learned about the genetic code. WE KNOW MORE NOW. Stop being dense and deal with the actual words in my posts. There is no prooftexting. That is just a silly statement either out of ignorance or as a diversion. I cant tell with you sometimes.

 

[blackumbrella]

Obviously my post was too simply stated for you. I WILL concede that the curent CONVENTIONAL wisdom on the matter is the status quo. I am also telling you that in the last 10 years especially NEW information has been learned about the genetic code. WE KNOW MORE NOW. Stop being dense and deal with the actual words in my posts. There is no prooftexting. That is just a silly statement either out of ignorance or as a diversion. I cant tell with you sometimes.

let's assume that you're right and that this decade's fringe dissenenters, unlike the last dozen decade's fringe dissenters, are actually on to something, some legit flaws in the accepted theory. do you really think the whole theory will be thrown out? darwin's original theory wasn't thrown out as parts were revealed incorrect. those parts were replaced. the key question here is: what sort of explanative theory do you expect will replace evolution in the scientific community? i promise you one thing--it's not going to be 'god did it.' so then the whole process begins again, you start trying to punch holes in the new theory until it too is replaced. and do you really expect then, that 'god did it' will pass muster as a scientific explanation? the creationist endeavor to supplant evolution is futile. it may well be the case that creationism outlives evolution, but it won't outlive science. if evolution flags, it will be bc science has upgraded to a stronger theory. ultimately you creationists are going to have to face the fact that your theory is metaphysical, religious, mythological, immaterial, take your pick, but it is not scientific and never will be. at least not in the form that's being argued for in this thread.

 

[Bamalaw92]

let's assume that you're right and that this decades fringe dissenenters, unlike the last dozen centuries' fringe dissenters, are actually on to something, some legit flaws in the accepted theory. do you really think the whole theory will be thrown out? darwin's original theory wasn't thrown out as parts were revealed incorrect. those parts were replaced. the key question here is: what sort of explanative theory do you expect will replace evolution in the scientific community? i promise you one thing--it's not going to be 'god did it.' so then the whole process begins again, you start trying to punch holes in the new theory until it too is replaced. and do you really expect then, that 'god did it' will pass muster as a scientific explanation? the creationist endeavor to supplant evolution is futile. it may well be the case that creationism outlives evolution, but it won't outlive science. if evolution flags, it will be bc science has upgraded to a stronger theory. ultimately you creationists are going to have to face the fact that your theory is metaphysical, religious, mythological, immaterial, take your pick, but it is not scientific and never will be.

Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that tomorrow Christ returns to Earth in all his glory as prophesized and proves conclusively that creationism is absolutely correct. Where will you and your scientists be left?

 

[blackumbrella]

Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that tomorrow Christ returns to Earth in all his glory as prophesized and proves conclusively that creationism is absolutely correct. Where will you and your scientists be left?

living it up in hell i suspect

 

[blackumbrella]

living it up in hell i suspect

though, how would you know it was really jesus? bc he could perform miracles? i imagine a healthy number, even a majority, of christians would deny that this guy who shows up claiming to be jesus and doing some nice magic tricks was indeed jesus.

 

[Bamalaw92]

living it up in hell i suspect

I suspect so as well. Although I doubt hell would be somewhere you would be doing a lot of "living" or having a lot of fun.

 

[Bamalaw92]

though, how would you know it was really jesus? bc he could perform miracles? i imagine a healthy number, even a majority, of christians would deny that this guy who shows up claiming to be jesus and doing some nice magic tricks was indeed jesus.

You have never read Revelations have you? Let me ask you another question. If you deny God and there is ultimately proven that there is one, have you lost more, less or the same as someone who believes in God and it is ultimately proven that there is no God?

 

[bamabake]

let's assume that you're right and that this decade's fringe dissenenters, unlike the last dozen decade's fringe dissenters, are actually on to something, some legit flaws in the accepted theory. do you really think the whole theory will be thrown out? darwin's original theory wasn't thrown out as parts were revealed incorrect. those parts were replaced. the key question here is: what sort of explanative theory do you expect will replace evolution in the scientific community? i promise you one thing--it's not going to be 'god did it.' so then the whole process begins again, you start trying to punch holes in the new theory until it too is replaced. and do you really expect then, that 'god did it' will pass muster as a scientific explanation? the creationist endeavor to supplant evolution is futile. it may well be the case that creationism outlives evolution, but it won't outlive science. if evolution flags, it will be bc science has upgraded to a stronger theory. ultimately you creationists are going to have to face the fact that your theory is metaphysical, religious, mythological, immaterial, take your pick, but it is not scientific and never will be. at least not in the form that's being argued for in this thread.

you start trying to punch holes in the new theory until it too is replaced.


I am not punching the holes science is.
NO scientist can explain how all came from nothing. You havent. Didnt it have to be created? If not how?

 

[TexasBama]

Gravity is still very much a theory, as you yourself acknowledge in your reference to Einstein..

As I understand it the General Theory provides solutions in all cases; i.e. Newtonian is limited to relatively equal masses and relatively slow (lt light)
speeds. Newtonian was all we ever studied (I'm very near OFC membership ).

But both Bohr and Einstein were using the same basic tools and methods; that made it easier (relatively) to identify the differences in their underlying assumptions (which I'm guessing roughly correspond to what you are calling bias). And because they could then be judged on more or less an equal footing, it was possible to determine who was right and who was wrong...

And they still disagreed.

If you want to say that your belief in creation prevents you from considering evolution, that's fine. Personally, I have no trouble reconciling the two.

We're on the same page here. Personally, I don't believe God plays parlor games.

 

[bamabake]

As I understand it the General Theory provides solutions in all cases; i.e. Newtonian is limited to relatively equal masses and relatively slow (lt light)
speeds. Newtonian was all we ever studied (I'm very near OFC membership ).



And they still disagreed.



We're on the same page here. Personally, I don't believe God plays parlor games.

Good point TB, God doesnt play parlor games. He does everything with purpose. Many of the people that BU refer too " that have spent a lifetime" studying evolution and so forth are coming to the conclusion that intellegent design must be envolved to explain what they are now seeing. No one has said there are not systems in place ( I know you havent said this) all I am saying is evolution as it is being explained to school children and to the public on the Discovery channel et al is a bad theory. It does not stand up to the scientific method but is based on assumptions that cannot be observered or repeated. It is like the fossil record. Just because one species is found in a strata below another does not mean it is older. That is what is assumed however and taught. Wht do we teach our kids things which are not true? It isnt creationist that are closed minded here ( i know you are not saying that as well) it is those that cannot allow new science to challenge the old if it even begins to suppose the inclusion of intellegent design. It would force them then to reassess even more things. This is indeed what is happening though and the reactions have been like the ostritch head in the sand. All of these "enlightened" evolutionist, instead of researching the changes themselves simply divert, call names and belittle.
I am not directing this post to you, I just couldnt shut after the first sentence