Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 12:27 PM
199 online now:
Faith, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (8 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,140 Year: 16,963/29,783 Month: 951/1,956 Week: 454/331 Day: 37/76 Hour: 1/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Scientific Rules Of Evidence.
mark24
Member (Idle past 3147 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 24 (16983)
09-09-2002 9:55 AM


Hi all,

I need to draw on your collective knowledge, if I may.

Can anyone reference, or point out where I can find the scientific rules of evidence, as opposed to the judicial set. I'm finding lots of reference to it, but no mention of where I may find the document.

[Added by edit] IF such a thing doesn't exist, then what criteria are applied to evidence so that scientists know it is admissable?

Many thanks,

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-09-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:06 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-14-2002 2:06 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (16990)
09-09-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
09-09-2002 9:55 AM


^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities.

If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line. Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication.

Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like.

You are on an utterly futile witchhunt.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 09-09-2002 9:55 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 11:26 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 11:27 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4427 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 24 (16993)
09-09-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
09-09-2002 11:06 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities.

If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line.

Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication.

Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like.

You are on an utterly futile witchhunt.

have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:06 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 09-09-2002 12:10 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4427 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 24 (16994)
09-09-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tranquility Base
09-09-2002 11:06 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities.

A pity Australia's premier mainstream universitites don't teach science properly anymore. Guess you have not bothered to look at the information for authors in most academic journals either.

If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line.

As a stunt I could right a genomics paper on 18S rDNA sequence variation in Puff the Magic Dragon and his relatives and get it rejected as the stupidity it is as well. Have fun trying.

Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication.

It would be utter ignorance to think that the data is suggestive of creation. Define protein family...in another post you said that DNA is unimportant as well which is interesting for someone who keeps calling themselves a molecular bio scientist. Also define higher life form...bacteria are more numerous and have a more efficient genome than mammals...they are a higher life form....

Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like.

If the blocks came from nowhere there would be nothing to align in the first place and how do you use clustering algorithms to demonstrate appearance out of nowhere? Nothing clustering with something? It is simply your utter lack of comprehension of molecular biology and basic science that you don't like.

You are on an utterly futile witchhunt.

You are a fundie zealot

have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:06 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:31 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 24 (16995)
09-09-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 11:27 AM


^ Tell me when you find hemoglobin in a prokaryotic genome.

Perhaps it might be lack of sequence hits that might indicate a new protein family?

Evoltuion/creaiton aside, if you think there is no 'order' to life, that there are not higher life forms then you have probably watched too much Star Trek. I think you need to study comparative genomics and you'll discover that the simplest life forms are essentially just metabolic machines. Multicellular creatures have these core genomes + swags of receptors and signalling moelcules for cell-cell interactions. Higher life ends up with up to about 300 differnetiated cell types. Organisms with brains have brain proteins. Organisms with immune systems have immune system proteins.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 11:27 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 5:46 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3147 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 24 (17006)
09-09-2002 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mammuthus
09-09-2002 11:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:

You are on an utterly futile witchhunt.

have a nice day


What witchhunt would that be?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 11:26 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4427 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 24 (17056)
09-10-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
09-09-2002 11:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Tell me when you find hemoglobin in a prokaryotic genome.

What would be the selective pressure for evolution of hemoglobin in a prokaryote? What would be the selective pressure for maintaining it if it was there originally? Cave dwelling animals lose pigmentation and the eyes become vistigial because there is not selection to maintain them...why would the genes not do the same? ...as to generation of a new protein...ever hear of exon shuffling? Basic bio 101

Perhaps it might be lack of sequence hits that might indicate a new protein family?

And this contradicts evolution how?

Evoltuion/creaiton aside, if you think there is no 'order' to life, that there are not higher life forms then you have probably watched too much Star Trek.

If you think that there is a direct progression from lower to higher in the biological world then you really need to go back and take some basic biology classes. Bacteria make up a larger portion of the biological mass of the planet...I guess they are more successful and "higher" than us...oh yeah, that goes for ants to.

I think you need to study comparative genomics and you'll discover that the simplest life forms are essentially just metabolic machines.

I have studied it and if you think the simplest life forms are non-developed metabolic machines you obviously have not studied microbiology.

Multicellular creatures have these core genomes + swags of receptors

I am fairly underwhelmed by this description of multicellular creatures..and what is a core genome?

and signalling moelcules for cell-cell interactions. Higher life ends up with up to about 300 differnetiated cell types. Organisms with brains have brain proteins. Organisms with immune systems have immune system proteins.

And BMW drivers drive BMWs....the last two sentences don't say very much.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:31 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-10-2002 9:05 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 24 (17077)
09-10-2002 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
09-10-2002 5:46 AM


^ From a genomic point of view we know that genes appear in large blocks. Some life forms don't have many of these blocks. Others have lots of these blocks. We, and most vertebrates for example, have more blocks of genes than anything else. A core genome is sort of like the minimal genome for metabolic life. There are people working on how small this core genome could be - about 200 genes perhaps.

Once you get into comparative genomics the Star Trek-like idea that maybe bacteria are as complex as us is seen for what it is - an utterly ludicrous myth. We have just about everything that bacteria have and many times over this - not just copied but dozens of times more brand new systems. We are more complex than bacteria. Drop the PCness, the bacteria really can't hear you - trust me.

Genomics has completelyt blown away the 1980s idea of 'we can't really say what is complex and what isn't'.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 5:46 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 9:21 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4427 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 24 (17078)
09-10-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
09-10-2002 9:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ From a genomic point of view we know that genes appear in large blocks. Some life forms don't have many of these blocks. Others have lots of these blocks. We, and most vertebrates for example, have more blocks of genes than anything else. A core genome is sort of like the minimal genome for metabolic life. There are people working on how small this core genome could be - about 200 genes perhaps.

Please define "large blocks", do you mean like the Hox clusters...do you mean genes only appear in blocks? It is not clear to me what you mean by this.....most vertebrates do not have many more genes than a fruit fly or fugu.

Your point about the minimal genome is well taken. I have been hearing about both calculations and experimental work to determine minimal genomes...interesting stuff.

Once you get into comparative genomics the Star Trek-like idea that maybe bacteria are as complex as us is seen for what it is - an utterly ludicrous myth. We have just about everything that bacteria have and many times over this - not just copied but dozens of times more brand new systems. We are more complex than bacteria. Drop the PCness, the bacteria really can't hear you - trust me.

Actually bacteria are more complex than you give the group credit for....but you could replace the "We" in each sentence with mice, hedgehogs, etc and not change the meaning. How does this define a progression?

Genomics has completelyt blown away the 1980s idea of 'we can't really say what is complex and what isn't'.

Define complex and what specific 1980's idea you are referring to. A volvox or a hydra are complex. Corn is complex....water is complex...complex loses it's meaning. Some frogs have larger genomes than mammals. Does this make them more complex? Since we really don't know what repetitive DNA and retroelements really do they cannot be dismissed as junk (about the only point that Peter Borger and I agree on). You seem to be using complexity as some sort of a value statement and implying (falsely) that evolution is a progression with humans at the pinnacle.

Cheers,
Mammuthus

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-10-2002]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-10-2002 9:05 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 4:12 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 24 (17148)
09-11-2002 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
09-10-2002 9:21 AM


^ I'll define genomic complexity with complete confidence:

Genomic complexity is proportional to the number of distinct protein families.

I suspect this definition will turn out to be roughly equivalent to the number of cell types. If you don't like that that is fine with me. Most genomic evoltuionists would agree with me that this is a useful definition.

I don't have a problem that it puts us at near equal complexity with mice and apes. It just doesn't bother me. My definition of complexity has no creationist agenda.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 09-10-2002 9:21 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 09-11-2002 4:18 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4427 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 24 (17149)
09-11-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
09-11-2002 4:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I'll define genomic complexity with complete confidence:

Genomic complexity is proportional to the number of distinct protein families.

I suspect this definition will turn out to be roughly equivalent to the number of cell types. If you don't like that that is fine with me. Most genomic evoltuionists would agree with me that this is a useful definition.

1) Please provide a citation that supports this definition.
2) Please answer the rest of the question I asked you.

I don't have a problem that it puts us at near equal complexity with mice and apes. It just doesn't bother me. My definition of complexity has no creationist agenda.


glad to hear it...but a "progression" of complexity does not logically follow what is seen in nature. And you assume many systems are "simple" when they clearly are not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 4:12 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
AtheistArchon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 24 (17390)
09-13-2002 6:50 PM


- Why don't I pitch in here... so far nobody has really answered his question.

- Science, in regards to scientific theory, uses empirical evidence; nothing else will do. Science absolutely requires evidence which can be tested many times by many people. Personal testimony does not suffice, because people can be biased, lying, or just plain mistaken.

- Judicial evidence can be empirical, certainly, but we (as in the court system) also rely upon personal testimony. I'm not a large fan of this system, myself, but it is probably the best thing available at the time.

- As for a link with 'official' rules of evidence for the courts... I am at a loss, I'm afraid.


  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 24 (17410)
09-14-2002 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
09-09-2002 9:55 AM


First of all,

Good question.

Second of all,
They are right, there is no document which states what is to be accepted as evidence and what is to be rejected.

To help answer this question a little more in depth, I would like to propose the following.

I believe that science exhitbits nine characterisitcs. And no this is not entirely my own list, I have colloborated with a great professor [my opnion] in my own list of characterisitcs and have modified mine when it needed to be modified. I will only list the relative ones that will relate to this question.

1. SCIENCE IS BASED ON EVIDENCE - well duh, but what kind? Physical, Observable and Empirical. Evidence does not always have to come from controlled experiments. Obviously the Thoery of Relativity did not come from experimentation when it was first formulated.

2. IT IS TESTABLE - Based on the evidence we can formulate a hypothesis, but is must be testable. You can state how you would theoretically test it, again the thoery of relativity, which was not proven until a few years ago.

4. IT IS PUBLIC - All observations and results of testing is made public to the rest of the scientific communinity for verification and acceptance. It is not kept private - for that would not be science in its strictest sense.

5. IT IS SELF-CORRECTING - which merely states that science does make mistakes - take a look at the early models of cell membranes or the atom. Why is it self-correcting? Becuase it is made public, therefore others can test the findings and if they duplicate it - fine, if not, then it needs to either be revised or rejected.

6. IT IS NON-AUTHORITARIAN - There is no one expert who is the President of science who dictates how things have to be done or what evidence is accepted or rejected. That is why there is no document or source that lays down the law. Science is all about learning the world around us, how would we learn about it in a fair and unbiased way if there was a standard in how we could do it - ex. someone dictating evidence acceptance criteria. Now granted we have standard procedures for certain things, ex. physical constants, laws, things of that nature.

7. IT IS CONSENSUAL - Example - We accept that the model that best works for us in regards to the cell membrane is the fluid-mosiac model. Why? Becuase it is accepted by most of the scientific community of biology. There is a consensus that this model is correct as of today - not to say it may change with new evidence someday.

8. IT IS TENTATIVE - Science changes as new things are discovered. Again one of the models of the cell membrane was the sandwich model. Did not work, when the electron microscope came on the scene around the 1950s. The model was changed based upon the new evidence.

All nine do relate to this question. Based on the above characterisitcs of science [or I should say good science], evidence to be accepted must meet all these requirements. It does need to be based off something we can see or gather data in whether it is application in nature or theoretical in nature. It needs to be public so it can see if it can gain acceptance by the consensus of the scientific community. If it can, then this would be good evidence to accept. If it cannot fit the criterium then you would really need to think hard about accepting it. If it does not fit this criterium, it does not belong to the Magesterium of Science, it would belong to another Magesteria.
Hope this helped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 09-09-2002 9:55 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
James J
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (57276)
09-23-2003 5:45 PM


Although my field of expertise differs with the majority here, the principals of discovery should remain the same.
If you have a theory, and it is correct, you should be able to turn the results on and off with a specific set of circumstances applied. If you can't accomplish that- it's just a theory, nothing more.
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 09-23-2003 6:39 PM James J has not yet responded
 Message 16 by John, posted 09-23-2003 8:22 PM James J has not yet responded
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 09-24-2003 8:30 PM James J has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8812
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 24 (57289)
09-23-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by James J
09-23-2003 5:45 PM


Pardon? What does that mean James?

"just a theory" -- like the two theories of gravity, like the atomic theory, like the germ theory? Maybe you need to figure out what a theory is and/or put forward your definition.

Turn results on and off? Like shut gravity off?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by James J, posted 09-23-2003 5:45 PM James J has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018