Science inquiry thread (revised)

I'd like this to be a question and answer thread, and request that scientists responding keep jargon, math and dependence on external links (as substitutes for their own explanations) to a minimum.This question comes from the thread, Is bacterial resistance really due to mutation?.It's been made clear on that thread why mutation is considered to be the only explanation for the development of resistance: When you isolate a single bacterium and grow a population from it, you are supposedly eliminating built-in mechanisms of variation, and that leaves mutation as the explanation.It was also explained on that thread how to be sure that you are starting with a nonresistant bacterium. So I understand how they arrive at the conclusion.Since this resistance develops rather predictably, however, this still suggests to my mind a built-in process of some sort -- or even something frankly Lamarckian in nature. Mutation, which I've understood to be basically an anomaly in the process, random and unpredictable, and often lethal, hardly seems a reliable method for developing any kind of survival-enhancing capacities in anything.This raises questions about exactly WHAT mutation IS. It's beginning to sound like there is a kind of "mutation" that really IS a normal built-in process, but that the mechanism for this is not yet understood. I mean, why should a random change in a gene so predictably lead to a bacterium's resistance? Shouldn't the probability be astronomically low-to-nonexistent?This message has been edited by Faith, 09-19-2005 02:29 AM

Faith,These are excellent questions. They are clearly science-based questions.You actually have THREE threads going on here. One is a suggestion, and two are basically science-based questions. Here's my thought and proposal:When talking about science, it's important to stick to the purely empirical. As you've seen, there' no room for bible-based claims in science. Bible-based claims can only motivate hypothesis creation. I am working on finding a place where you can create such hypotheses and where you can investigate things based on a YEC perspective. Right now we don't have a good one, but it's definitely not the science forums.If you can really understand and agree to this, then I will speak on your behalf to the other admins about lifting your restrictions from the science forums. Again, I will be very clear--there is NO ROOM for discussion or argumentation based on YEC claims in the science forums; all arguments must be based on data and hypotheses that are based in data.If you feel you cannot agree to this way of discussion in the science forums, then I would suggest that you open a new thread in "Suggestions and Questions" with your first paragraph only. But honestly, I don't see that request being honored. In such a thread as you're proposing, you'd have to be able to restrict yourself in the way I described above anyway.To be clear: questions along the lines of "how does that work?" or "how does the theory account for this emprical observation?" are always OK. Statements such as "I don't think the theory accounts for this piece of empirical data well; can you explain that?" are always OK. But criticisms such as "that doesn't fit with a literal reading of the bible" or "I know you're wrong, regardless of what the evidence says" are NOT ok for the threads your proposing, no matter where we put them.I'm actually very hopeful that we're pretty clear on these lines now, and that you may agree to them in the way I've suggested above. So I've taken the time to really write out and respond to this. Let me know your thoughts.Thanks.

Ben, I am VERY leery of the suggestion that this go into a science forum. I have the feeling we are still butting heads on the basic problem here and that you are simply stating your terms for my acceding to EvC's demands without taking mine into account. Sorry, I'm VERY wary of this line of thinking. It sounds like what I myself claimed for a long time here, but in reality it does not work out that way. I assumed it was possible for a YEC to address science questions without bringing in the Bible, but even when I did so I was accused of bringing in the Bible. Finally, recently, I recognized that there is no WAY to avoid bringing in the Bible since it IS the basis for all YEC thinking about science. When evidence contradicts God, a YEC has to rethink the evidence. This is anathema to EvC.It is no coincidence that YEC after YEC -- and IDers/OECs too -- gets suspended from the science forums and eventually from EvC altogether, for failure to meet the science requirements -- or feel they have to leave because the terms of the debate are stacked against them -- even when they ARE scientists. The scientists last longer, but still leave. There is of course a difference between a scientist rethinking the evidence and a nonscientist like me daring to try, and that adds fuel to the existing conflict, though how to weight the factors I don't know.The method of approaching the questions is completely different. The objectives are different. Again, YEC methods and objectives in dealing with science questions are anathema at EvC. How can debate occur at all?I am still unclear about how your idea for providing a dedicated arena for hypothesis development is going to work. I thought the Theological Creationism and ID forum was supposed to cover that, being a place where science questions could be discussed without the usual science prohibitions against Biblical premises. But what happens is that the science diehards don't want it ANYWHERE on the board. How do you resolve THAT?POSSIBLY if I stick to questions as in this topic proposal, and keep my views out of it except in the form of exploring such questions, I might survive in the science side for a while. But after my recent experiences here, the last straw being the Southwest forum, I'm not sure of anything about this. I think I'd be happier in a non-science neutral zone for this sort of discussion where if my Biblical presupposition emerges I won't be punished for it.=================================================================
References:My first post that throws down the gauntlet on this subject: Post #6, Conditions, on IRH's geology thread

quote:

---

I would expect the discussion not even to get into such questions, but my opponents usually make them part of the argument one way or another even if I don't, so if they come up, this is my position, they are not falsifiable. Everything else is.

---

This is the thread that convinced me that there's no place for a YEC on the science side of EvC:
Have any Biblical literalists been to the Southwest?The following are two other posts where I lay out my conclusion that debate is not possible here because of the mutually exclusive assumptions on either side: Post #244 on your YEC approaches threadModeration thread where I bring it up again

quote:

---

I don't really want to post on the science forums because they don't accommodate the way a YEC thinks. Let scientists post there (even though YEC scientists also think like YECs and don't last too long either). The same science bias, however, also prevails on the nonscience side of the site. This isn't a personal issue really. It's about the terms of the debate here and I think they may be insurmountable, though I'll wait and see if Ben comes up with something workable.

---

{Edit to correct grammatical error}This message has been edited by Faith, 09-19-2005 12:48 AM

AdminBen, I'm afraid that I think Faith has already demonstrated that she is in no way interested in actually discussing science issues. The wish to avoid actual science makes it clear that Faith should continue to be restricted from the science forums.Anything which attempts to being up scientific issues in non-science forums is an end run of the policies that I understand to be in place.As is being discussed elsewhere it is futile to discuss these things with someone who expresses Faith's point of view.

Given the terms of AdminNosy's post, I have to say that I agree completely with him. If you would like nevertheless to provide a way for the questions I raised in the OP to be addressed it doesn't look like the science forums are the place for them. I know this is a big headache for you, and you've been very understanding and in fact bending over backwards to facilitate the YEC position, but as I've been saying, and AdminNosy confirms, our basic assumptions are mutually exclusive, and that makes your headache objective, not a matter of mediating a quarrel.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-18-2005 09:42 PM

I agree completely with AdminNosy. I hope this was clear from my post #2, but I'm guessing it was NOT. AdminNosy, I understand this. I wanted to see if any recent discussion had made clear the need to do science in science places and non-science in non-science places. I wanted to check at least check with Faith. I was willing to discuss this matter among admins, to ask to take the responsibility, if Faith felt she could handle doing science only. So, I asked, knowing full well Faith's past history and other admin's thoughts on this.Faith states her current feelings as: This is a totally valid feeling and thought, and I appreciate your honesty, Faith. Unfortunately, for the questions you're asking, it just doesn't work. They're questions about science, and they belong in the science forums. And it's pretty clear from your posts that you understand all this.If you want to ask science questions to scientists, I think that's great. But if you want to ask science questions to scientists, you have to be able to talk science. AdminNosy sees from past experience that you haven't, and your current posts confirm that. As far as I can see, there's no "alternative" way to go about it. In other discussions, I was trying to create a place where YECs can do non-scientific emprical "exploration." But when it comes to discussing scientific theories, it can only be done one way. That is, scientifically. It makes no sense otherwise.As I mentioned previously, if you want to bring it up in "Suggestions and Questions", you can do so. But I just don't see it going anywhere. If you want to ask science questions, you have to be able to keep non-scientific methods out of it. But if you do want to see if others have different ideas, this option is available to you.Thanks.

---

There has never been the slightest doubt about what is required in the science forums, and I have also never once refused to comply with it either. What happens there is not my refusing to do science but that inevitably my methods are not acceptable, even though I keep my assumptions out of the picture, and this is what I have been trying to get recognized. I saw the same thing happen to Buzsaw and to Randman, and even to TrueCreation in the end --although because he is a scientist he stuck it out a very long time nevertheless.From my point of view this situation is not being understood at all, and is going to continue being misunderstood, and YECs and OECs as well, scientists or not, are going to continue to fail EvC's policy because you can't have a debate when the assumptions of your opponent are disqualified at the beginning. Those assumptions do not need to be stated at all, or enter into the debate at all, but they do determine the method of the investigation and EvC makes NO allowance for this (and vice versa). That is EvC's right but then don't pretend that what is happening here is true debate.I'm quite willing to stick to discussing the scientific questions scientifically -- and I haven't said anything different at any point. I'd really like to know the answers to the questions I raised, and I see no reason why that *has* to raise any of the meta issues at all, I simply know that it always does. So I don't see much chance of my efforts in that direction, based as they are on my YEC assumptions, working under the science assumptions here.That's fine. Way it goes.

What I would like to try out, in spite of my suspicion that the same old same old will probably occur, is not that I be admitted to all the science forums at once, but that this thread be restricted to one question -- the one about bacteria -- and I will eliminate the rest of the post to leave that one only -- and that only one thread be open to me on the science side for the discussion of this one topic, just to see if what always happens happens, or if it really is possible to have a question and answer format that successfully avoids its always happening. Nothing but data, nothing but science.=====================================
Here's the reduced proposal:For a question and answer format only, requesting that scientists answer with a minimum of jargon, math and external links, I'd like to get answers to the following question:On the thread about bacterial resistance it's been made clear why mutation is considered to be the only explanation for the development of resistance. When you isolate a single bacterium and grow a population from it, you are supposedly eliminating built-in mechanisms of variation, and that leaves mutation as the explanation. It was also explained how to be sure that you are starting with a nonresistant bacterium and so on. So I understand how they arrive at the conclusion.Since this resistance develops rather predictably, however, this still suggests to my mind a built-in process of some sort -- or something frankly Lamarckian in nature. Mutation, which I've understood to be basically an anomaly in the process, random and unpredictable, and often lethal, hardly seems a reliable method for developing any kind of survival-enhancing capacities in anything. This is a fundamental problem YECs have with mutation as the mechanism for evolution.This raises questions about exactly WHAT mutation IS. It's beginning to sound like there is a kind of "mutation" that really IS a normal built-in process, but that the mechanism for this is not yet understood. I mean, why should a random change in a gene so predictably lead to a bacterium's resistance? Shouldn't the probability be astronomically low-to-nonexistent?{Edit to add another thought: The above could simply be asked in a post on the existing thread on the subject, with the idea that I would restrict myself to questions there.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-19-2005 01:45 AM

Faith, Since you are willing to try, then, as I promised in my first post, I will bring it up with the other moderators. I can't promise anything more than that. I will let you know what happens here.In the meantime, I have some suggestions for your proposed opening post. It may be for naught, but if you want to edit it while you're waiting, that may help convince people that we can get this done.First of all, it's very common, for whatever reason (the reason doesn't matter), that when discussing science issues with you, there's miscommunication. We need to always keep that in mind, and try to minimize it. In your opening post, then, I would ask that you provide links to the thread you mention in your first paragraph and, if at all possible, links to specific posts that led to the understanding that you describe in your first paragraph. Right now you describe your understanding, but there is no direct, linked information that shows what led you to that understanding. I think that can lead to a lot of confusion. Providing the links will minimize that.Second, in your third paragraph, you say "This is a fundamental problem YECs have with mutation as the mechanism for evolution." Please remove this sentence. It doesn't matter if YECs, aliens, or whoever has problems with this stuff. YOU have a problem with it, it drives your questions, and that is good enough. There's no need to tie in with "YECs" at all in this discussion. It only represents possible ways for the thread to get distracted.Otherwise, I think your thoughts and questions are pretty clear.Thanks Faith.

---

OP post duly edited. But I must exit for the night, so I'll see what the verdict is in the morning.

I spun this off this morning with slight modifications (changed the thread title to that of the OPpost's subtitle) and a warning to all about keeping things focused on science.Let's see how it goes.One last request. Part of keeping on-topic and within science is restricting the content of what is posted. But another critical part is in how you read and respond to posts. There are always gray areas. Regardless of "fault" or "blame", for better or for worse, the onus is on you to respond in a manner focused in science. I'll be watching closely to warn or remove those who are posting outside of that. But it's up to you to stay focused in the science regardless.Anyway, it's showtime Faith. Show me what you got.

---

Thanks, Ben. When I get back in a few hours I'll see what I can do with it.(It might help if you included a link to the new thread in this post).

Copied Post #1 to create this thread in the Biological Evolution Forum.Faith, if there's anything you need, as always please follow one of the links in my signature and post it to the appropriate thread.Thanks.

---