Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 109 of 146 (662259)
05-14-2012 3:40 AM


Many people in this forum mistake 'evolution' to mean a particular theory - and only that theory. Like saying money only refers to Ammerican dollars - there is different currencies, there are different theories/explanations of evolution.
The approach preferred on this site is what I call 'auto-naturalism', meaning Nature evolves itself. This explanation could perhaps be adequate when evolution is viewed as a very simple process, in which life can spontaneously arise with few chemicals bumping into each other in a heated Petrie dish.
Auto-naturalism no longer makes sense. Nature is far too complex - in fact we have yet to determine its parametres. Yet many writers here have decided what Nature 'isn't', before we've figured out what Nature 'is'.

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2012 3:52 AM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 05-14-2012 5:51 AM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 8:41 AM Vanessa has replied
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 7:47 PM Vanessa has replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 116 of 146 (663212)
05-22-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
05-14-2012 7:47 PM


Re: work in progress
RAZD writes:
... we have tentatively accepted the current scientific theories as the best working explanations of the observed objective empirical evidence. That not all is known is acknowledged, but we expect that every test of every hypothesis, whether the result is negative (the concept is invalidated and discarded) or positive (the concept appears valid so far) brings us to a closer and closer approximation of reality.
Figuring out everything is a work in progress.
Yes, we do not yet know how life evolved. Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it. You like this explanation. Cool, it's yours, though I personally think it is inadequate.
My issue is the assumption that any argument to this theory is religiously driven and unscientific. What you are erroneously stating is that evolution can only happen one way - through arbitrary mutation. I claim 'certainty is the enemy of science'.
I take the position of Galileo and Einstein, who both believed and spent the last years of their lives looking for - a unified theory of all things. We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life. It is a poor patchwork quilt of life and Nature does not work like that. We should strive to find the best explanation to fit the data. You have already decided what it is and you wait for confirmation. I am much more interested in finding the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 7:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by vimesey, posted 05-22-2012 12:21 PM Vanessa has replied
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 05-22-2012 12:34 PM Vanessa has replied
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2012 5:24 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2012 6:20 PM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 117 of 146 (663213)
05-22-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
05-14-2012 8:41 AM


Percy writes:
Well, now you're just making things up. If you type "auto-naturalism" into Google you'll get back a single page of links, and one of them is to you. How many searches have you ever done in Google that returned a single page?
I'm surprised there was any reference on Google, because I made it up for this forum to better clarify my argument.
Evolution has a definition. If you're going to discuss evolution I suggest you use the same definition everyone else is using
The definition of evolution on this site is narrowed down to a single interpretation - a theory of development through mutation. I will not accept, nor use that definition of evolution - it is an insult to Nature.
Everything we know in science has come from studying nature. If there's anything in science that disagrees with nature then it's wrong.
Nowhere in Nature does life develop through mutation. It is wrong to assume (and call it Naturalism) that all life on Earth developed this way.
... auto-naturalism as a scientific philosophy never existed.
It is the primary scientific philosophy of evolution, it is time to name accurately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 8:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 05-22-2012 12:37 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 05-23-2012 8:47 AM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 121 of 146 (663245)
05-22-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taq
05-22-2012 12:34 PM


Re: work in progress
Taq writes:
That is not what has been stated. What we are stating is that this is what we OBSERVE. Yes, it is possible that evolution could occur through mutations that are not random with respect to fitness. However, this isn't the case. We OBSERVE that mutations are random with respect to fitness. The two best examples are:
Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment
Lederbergs' Plate Replica Experiment
What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree. For example, you observe me write a sentence and you say that this minor observation is convincing evidence that I have written everything that has ever been written, I am the font of all knowledge, I have constructed all buildings, I am the author of everything that ever was and will be - its absurd! Can you not see that?
Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information. For example, I'm drowning in a tank, above my head is a hole leading to air, but I can't fit through the hole, so I cut off my arm. I now fit through the hole and save my life, but I am disabled. I am less that what I was before my 'adaptation'.
You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 05-22-2012 12:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2012 4:15 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 123 by Taq, posted 05-22-2012 4:16 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 05-22-2012 4:54 PM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 126 of 146 (663255)
05-22-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by vimesey
05-22-2012 12:21 PM


Re: work in progress
vimesey writes:
We do not observe that computer programs reproduce and occasionally mutate in so doing.
You are completely right, it was a poor example.
... we observe, predict, and then either discard a theory, or determine that it seems to represent the best explanation available to us of the phenomena which we observe. As I understand it, scientists are not certain - they are sufficiently convinced to move scientific enquiry and advances in technology forward, but they are always open to improving their understanding.
That is an admirable but idealistic comment - like saying politicians are concerned for our welfare and bankers are concerned for our money. It is what we like to believe. And it is often true. But not when it counts. There is an expression "Science progresses one funeral at a time." No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed. Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution. To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion. How can an attack on religion support a scientific theory? Too many people in this forum have decided that the theory of mutation as the driving force of evolution is the only acceptable scientific theory. That myopic view is what I argue against.
science in its widest sense will always be a patchwork - the explanations of how a cell functions; of how electrons (sort of) orbit an atom's nucleus; of how gravity bends light; of how plate tectonics create earthquakes, will all be different from each other.
True, but you give examples of widely different phenomena. If there was one theory that could explain the evolution of the solar system (vital for the development of life), the beginning of life and how it developed - would this not be preferable? If we could replace a multitude of theories with one, wouldn't it be better? What we are looking at is an engineering problem and yet we are not applying engineering principles. We have accepted an explanation of ad hoc mutations. What Darwin proposed was linked to Nature - variance in phenotype could produce new biological structures. He believed it was a simple process, like animal husbandry - we can make woolier sheep, meatier cows. But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
I attended an Intelligent Design conference and I asked a Christian woman if the truth of life were found out and it didn't agree with her Christian teachings, could she accept it. She didn't answer, but she found me the next day and said she would keep her Christian beliefs. I appreciated her honesty.
If the truth of life were found out and it did not agree with current evolutionary theory could you put aside your beliefs?
I use the word truth deliberately because that's what we want. If you have a disease you don't want a theory about what it could be, you want the truth.
... looking for "the truth" suggests too many preconceptions - let's just find out what is.
Hear! Hear!
Edited by Vanessa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by vimesey, posted 05-22-2012 12:21 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 05-22-2012 6:06 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2012 6:14 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 129 by vimesey, posted 05-22-2012 6:15 PM Vanessa has replied
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2012 8:54 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 139 by dwise1, posted 05-23-2012 2:40 AM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 05-23-2012 8:55 AM Vanessa has replied
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 05-23-2012 12:02 PM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 131 of 146 (663263)
05-22-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by vimesey
05-22-2012 6:15 PM


Re: work in progress
Hi vimesey
This is the heart of where we differ. It's not a question of what might be "preferable" or "better" - it's a question of what actually is.
This is exactly what I want.
The answers may appear messy; astonishingly complicated and beyond most people's abilities to process (mine very much included, when it comes to higher mathematics and quantum mechanics for example), but I don't refute them because I feel that there must be some other explanation which is "preferable" or "better". Thinking that there must be something better is a preconception.
I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.
I know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. I have only been on this site a couple of weeks. I did not intend to explain the theory I heard, I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by vimesey, posted 05-22-2012 6:15 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by vimesey, posted 05-22-2012 6:52 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2012 6:54 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2012 9:12 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 136 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2012 11:55 PM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 12:07 AM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2012 2:03 AM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 140 of 146 (663293)
05-23-2012 2:46 AM


Great. I will present an alternative proposal for evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 05-23-2012 3:39 AM Vanessa has not replied
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 6:32 AM Vanessa has not replied

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 4238 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 145 of 146 (663322)
05-23-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
05-23-2012 8:55 AM


Re: work in progress
Percy writes:
What I believe in is following the evidence wherever it leads.
What a wonderful response!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 05-23-2012 8:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024