Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

It was an analogy. Following your comment though... If the original theory ( which was incorrect) was that the sun revolved around the earth, was it not the burden of the people that had a newer theory to prove it. In this case the conventional wisdom that the sun revolved around the earth was replaced by facts that were out of reach before. The same is true on the subject of evolution in two ways. One is that evolution has never been proven as a fact just positioned as one, all the while the burden of disproving the old idea (that God crated us) was on your side. Second it is similar that due to modern science we know things about DNA etc that are proving with facts that the theory is passing away.

firstly, bake, i respect the way you've hung in through this thread and its previous versions. you truly believe your beliefs are the truth and as such you don't shy away from open discourse. what intriques me most about your position (yours, illvo's, and cabam's, alike) is how you lean so heavily on science to prove your point, when it's clearly been shown that the vast vast majority of scientists disagree with your stance. the most clearly suspect device we've seen employed in this thread is selective citation of scientific information, what in biblical studies is called prooftexting, such as using a statistic carl sagan reported, but conveniently ignoring the rest of what he had to say on the matter. also making appearances in this thread are antiquated science (propping up pasteur/tearing down darwin) and misapplied science (cosmology>biology). the point is, and COB said this many pages back, if you have to decontextualize scientific findings in any of the abovementioned ways, you're distorting the evidence to fit your procrustean bed, when you should be building a bed to fit the evidence. the inevitable conclusion is that you couldn't care less about science, about discovery and insight into the natural world. you care only about preserving your ideas of the supernatural, ideas you're unwilling or able to examine or call into question.

 

[blackumbrella]

I am underwhelmed at the response from the evoulution crowd on yours and Beccas posts. Their silence is deafening.

...

You've been sticking your fingers in your ears

 

[bamabake]

firstly, bake, i respect the way you've hung in through this thread and its previous versions. you truly believe your beliefs are the truth and as such you don't shy away from open discourse. what intriques me most about your position (yours, illvo's, and cabam's, alike) is how you lean so heavily on science to prove your point, when it's clearly been shown that the vast vast majority of scientists disagree with your stance. the most clearly suspect device we've seen employed in this thread is selective citation of scientific information, what in biblical studies is called prooftexting, such as using a statistic carl sagan reported, but conveniently ignoring the rest of what he had to say on the matter. also making appearances in this thread are antiquated science (propping up pasteur/tearing down darwin) and misapplied science (cosmology>biology). the point is, and COB said this many pages back, if you have to decontextualize scientific findings in any of the abovementioned ways, you're distorting the evidence to fit your procrustean bed, when you should be building a bed to fit the evidence. the inevitable conclusion is that you couldn't care less about science, about discovery and insight into the natural world. you care only about preserving your ideas of the supernatural, ideas you're unwilling or able to examine or call into question.

is how you lean so heavily on science to prove your point, when it's clearly been shown that the vast vast majority of scientists disagree with your stance.

As Becca, KV and I have pointed out already (see my very last post) conventional wisom in science falls slowly. The science that has been presented here already proves it. The science on the fossil record is being rewritten as well AS WE SPEAK.



you care only about preserving your ideas of the supernatural, ideas you're unwilling or able to examine or call into question.[/QUOTE]



What I personally know about God doesnt need preserving. However to adress this, I am only interested in the truth. If evoulution was observable. testable, repeatable, if it can be shown (in spite of the volume of emerging evidence) that new inormation has and is constantly being added to the genetic code, yadda yadda, then why would I not embrace evoultion as a fact. I am NOT hardheaded, in fact I am open minded. You are wrong, at least about me.

 

[NYBamaFan]

if you have to decontextualize scientific findings in any of the abovementioned ways, you're distorting the evidence to fit your procrustean bed

I respectfully disagree. One of the key points in this thread was that scientists interpret the results of their tests in ways that are skewed by their bias. By simply taking their statistics or test results and applying a different interpretation, one is not distorting the evidense, one is simply applying a different bias.

The context to which you refer is the interpretation of the observation, not the observation itself. As long as bake doesn't start changing the reported observations, he has not distorted anything...

 

[jthomas666]

I respectfully disagree. One of the key points in this thread was that scientists interpret the results of their tests in ways that are skewed by their bias. By simply taking their statistics or test results and applying a different interpretation, one is not distorting the evidense, one is simply applying a different bias.

Applying ANY bias to interpretation results in distortion. If I look at a picture through a flat, clear pane of glass, there is going to be some distortion.

The question then become, what biases tend to result in greater distortion?

 

[NYBamaFan]

No - the point is that EVERYONE brings bias into EVERY argument. A scientist's bias is no more valid than any other person's...

 

[jthomas666]

No - the point is that EVERYONE brings bias into EVERY argument. A scientist's bias is no more valid than any other person's...

To what are you saying "NO"?

At what point does "bias" end and a person's legitimate expertise begin? Because it appears that you're making a rather disingenous attempt to discredit a scientist's accumulated knowledge and training by dismissing them as bias.

 

[Bamalaw92]

it appears that you're making a rather disingenous attempt to discredit a scientist's accumulated knowledge and training by dismissing them as bias.

Haven't many here done the same thing with religious scholars?

 

[jthomas666]

Haven't many here done the same thing with religious scholars?

Probably--I tuned this thread out for a while. :biggrin2:

The problem that we are continually running into is people on both sides insisting that religious studies and scientific studies use the same methodology. I've said it before and I'll say it again: When you attempt to discuss science and religion as though they were the same sort of study, you do a disservice to both.

Historical science (the sort of science that produced the theory of evolution) works like this:

1. Here's some evidence (Observation).
2. Here's my attempt at a logical explaination for that evidence. (Theory)
3. Here's some more evidence. Does it agree with my theory. (Test)
4. If so, I still have a theory, but a stronger theory. If not, then am I completely off base, or do I need to adjust my theory. (Revision)
5. Repeat the process ad infinitum.

Christian theology does *not* involve testing its fundamental premise. That God created the universe is a matter of FAITH, not science:

1. The Bible says that God created the universe.
2. Therefore, God created the universe.

When you attempt to use science to prove that God created the universe, you get something like this:

1. Here's some evidence.
2. I cannot rationally explain the evidence.
3. Therefore, God must have created it.

The result is a "science" that operates something like this:

The problem with that approach is that there are a myriad of things in our universe that no one could rationally explain two hundred years ago, but now, we understand them. (There is what is known as Clarke's Law: Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.)

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.

 

[TexasBama]

To what are you saying "NO"?

At what point does "bias" end and a person's legitimate expertise begin? Because it appears that you're making a rather disingenous attempt to discredit a scientist's accumulated knowledge and training by dismissing them as bias.

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.

 

[92tide]

its been a while since i looked at scientific method, but do you not do your testing on the null hypothesis and either accept or reject the null rather than the hypothesis itself? just wondering

 

[NYBamaFan]

666,

The no was not an answer to a question or a suggestion that you were wrong. I was simply trying to say that you misunderstood my post.

When the press reports an event, they are reporting fact. When they add rhetoric, they are providing their interpretation of the implications. The reporter might be right or wrong, but one doesn't have to accept their interpretation to fully absorb the importance of the event being reported.

Same thing with science. 10 scientists can run the same test, get the same result, and infer different things from those results. Bias. When a Christian looks at those same test results, he might see something completely different. Bias. The Christian doesn't need to read the scientist's interpretations to discern another, different possibility.

You can argue that scientists are better positioned to accurately interpret the results, but when you are talking about things like evolution, there are no experts - just opinions. We did not see it happen and cannot reproduce it, so it cannot be proven. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, but it does leave sufficient room for other interpretations. And all of those interpretations will have been influenced by the author's bias...

 

[BeccaBama]

Historical science (the sort of science that produced the theory of evolution) works like this:
1. Here's some evidence (Observation).
2. Here's my attempt at a logical explaination for that evidence. (Theory)

(I’m excluding the idea that God could have had anything to do with it so I must come up with a naturalistic interpretation that validates that assumption)
3. Here's some more evidence. Does it agree with my theory. (Test)

(We’ve seen animals adapting to their environments, that constitutes change, so sure it agrees with my theory when I look at the vague terminology of evolution as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations, ignoring of course the lack of evidence for intermediary change between classes)

4. If so, I still have a theory, but a stronger theory. If not, then am I completely off base, or do I need to adjust my theory. (Revision)

5. Repeat the process ad infinitum.

(I have continually mutated these fruit flies and there are all sorts of changes, curled wings, long wings, no wings, but they are still fruit flies. Oh well, still constitutes change.)

The problem is, the definition of evolution as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations glosses over the true idea behind evolutionary theory, molecules to man evolution. With this definition, evolutionists can say evolution is not disputable, we’ve seen change in animals over generations. 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. Creationists have been accused of using vague terminology when it comes to information, but at the same time evolutionists themselves use vague terminology to define evolution.

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.

 

[stammerman80]

[*]The Bible says that God created the universe.
[*]Therefore, God created the universe.

And That Is All You Need. All The Ansswers To Every Question Can Be Found In The Bible. Science Is A Secular Myth.This Thread Is Too Much Nonsense. You Want To Know Where Man Came From? Read Genesis.

 

[BeccaBama]

Speaking of mutations and vague terminology, it was claimed that I was using the popular definition of the word mutation not the scientific term when I said “Mutations are generally harmful”. Is Genetics 101 also being unscientific?

Genetics 101 describes a mutation as a change or alteration that occurs in the DNA. The changes are refered to as mutations when they are out of the realm of normal variation. They go on to explain how mutations occur, the first method being copying errors during replication, the second method being damage through environmental agents. Our cells have built in mechanisms that catch and repair most of the changes that occur during DNA replication or from environmental damage. Errors that occur in the DNA of cells that produce eggs and sperm are called germline mutations and are the type that causes disease to run in a family, according to genetics 101. They go on to describe the different types of mutations, and how they mess up the intended message of the DNA. They say “There are many different ways to alter a gene, just as there are many different ways to introduce typos into a sentence.” Here are a few of the phrases they use to describe some of these mutations: make DNA meaningless, nonfunctional protein, protein being made at the wrong time or in the wrong place.

Here is another example of evolutionists using vague terminology of mutation as a change or alteration in the DNA and ignoring the implication of the subsequent explanation. These changes do not appear beneficial to me, but harmful, like I said originally.

http://www.genetichealth.com/G101_Changes_in_DNA.shtml

How do a bunch of errors and damage accumulating over time by chance produce the intricate workings of the human body?

 

[NYBamaFan]

Science Is A Secular Myth

Huh??? :conf2:

 

[stammerman80]

Huh??? :conf2:

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.

 

[bamabake]

Historical science (the sort of science that produced the theory of evolution) works like this:
1. Here's some evidence (Observation).
2. Here's my attempt at a logical explaination for that evidence. (Theory)

(I’m excluding the idea that God could have had anything to do with it so I must come up with a naturalistic interpretation that validates that assumption)
3. Here's some more evidence. Does it agree with my theory. (Test)

(We’ve seen animals adapting to their environments, that constitutes change, so sure it agrees with my theory when I look at the vague terminology of evolution as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations, ignoring of course the lack of evidence for intermediary change between classes)

4. If so, I still have a theory, but a stronger theory. If not, then am I completely off base, or do I need to adjust my theory. (Revision)

5. Repeat the process ad infinitum.

(I have continually mutated these fruit flies and there are all sorts of changes, curled wings, long wings, no wings, but they are still fruit flies. Oh well, still constitutes change.)

The problem is, the definition of evolution as a process that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations glosses over the true idea behind evolutionary theory, molecules to man evolution. With this definition, evolutionists can say evolution is not disputable, we’ve seen change in animals over generations. 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. Creationists have been accused of using vague terminology when it comes to information, but at the same time evolutionists themselves use vague terminology to define evolution.

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.

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".


Great post Becca. I am afraid due to the common sense associated with it , all we will see will be either run on sentences with no capped words, wheat bread again or more deafening silence. One can hope for a genuinly intellectual argument made or an intellegent concession made but I am not going to hold my breath.

 

[NYBamaFan]

It Is Up To You To Have Faith To Believe.

I have faith but you are talking rubbish. God created everything, but He did not make man stupid. And He does not say HOW He created man, so you are the one jumping to conclusions. Science is no less valid because some scientists choose to use it to refute God. Knowlegde is not evil. Where did you come up with this rubbish? It is not in my Bible.

This will all make sense when we stand before God, but we can attempt to understand before that time...

 

[blackumbrella]

One of the key points in this thread was that scientists interpret the results of their tests in ways that are skewed by their bias.

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

By simply taking their statistics or test results and applying a different interpretation, one is not distorting the evidense, one is simply applying a different bias.

no, but taking that evidence out of context is, per the examples i cited.