Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 121 of 152 (240005)
09-02-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-02-2005 2:01 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
AEA writes:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
AEA writes:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
No problems butting in. Sorry for slow responses but I've a few things on the boil and a project coming to completion at work. And there is only in theory 24 hours in the day
"Limited" and "well-substantiated". What defines well-substantiated here? What is the total amount of knowledge that would be required to describe the complete story and what amount of knowledge is actually available and what is the quality of the knowledge we have with respect to knowledge which would show something for sure. I'm not asking for a presentation of evolutionary evidence here - just making a point for....
The idea of well-substantiated is only a convention. There has been no theory which has come to be proved yet. We have nothing that we have established completely in order to be able to examine it from no knowledge-to-complete knowledge and thus calibrate other theories from it. Nothing with which to compare how far a theory is along the complete path and then say, for example that 40% along is 'well-substantiated. Without a datum, every comparative measurement is simply comparing one incomplete theory with another incomplete theory. The blind leading the blind as it were
Such convention is useless from the point of view of commenting objectively on 'well-substantiated'. ToE's 'well-substantiated' is completely subjective. It is safer to say limited when you don't know what the limits are.
Theodosius's comment are subjectively correct but objectively they are sheer bluster. We can observe things like the earth going around the sun. We can travel into space and confirm the earth is round (even though we don't have to to know that. Nobody has seen one species change into another. And until they do "Evolution is a process which has always gone on..." remains tentitive - not fact.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 2:01 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 3:28 PM iano has replied
 Message 124 by Brad McFall, posted 09-05-2005 12:34 PM iano has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 152 (240025)
09-02-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
09-02-2005 2:49 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
"Limited" and "well-substantiated". What defines well-substantiated here?
The ToE has been substantiated by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and unable to be falsified. I understand the reasonable is subjective and that the cognitive dissonance of some theistic philosophers cause reasonable to be far beyond those who are science minded. The ToE has enough substantiation to convince the neutral observer upon review of the evidence.
The idea of well-substantiated is only a convention. There has been no theory which has come to be proved yet.
Proof is for math and alcohol. Science never proves anything. Scientific theories are as strong as the evidence that substantiates them.
Nobody has seen one species change into another.
Observed Instances of Speciation (Observed Instances of Speciation)
Error | Christian Forums (Observed Speciation)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html (Some More Observed Speciation Events)
(Peer-reviewed examples of beneficial mutations and macroevolution/speciation)
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 09-02-2005 03:40 PM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-05-2005 01:06 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 2:49 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:31 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 123 of 152 (240043)
09-02-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-02-2005 10:07 AM


the tailor or the cook, you decide
As long as there is some original mystery it is not possible to seperate origin from rates of change since any supposed starting point preCISEly due to the size derivable from Weyl's
quote:
Here we have attempted to develop the formal scheme of genetics in such general form as to comprise all more or less irregular occurrences. Nowhere in this scheme was it necessary so far to speak of sex; but of course the fact cannot be ignored forever that syngamy between two gametes takes place only if one is a sperm, the other an egg. This is a polarity (gamete sexuality) that has nothing to do with genes.^(Denote by --- an organism arising from ...)On the other hand...
Thus while we can be in basic data agreement, as I do believe you and I are, unless you are, inaddition to be a seperatist of the Gouldian variatey etc, you are a FISHERIST or an HALDANIST (IE NOT A CROIZATIST etc) there is no way to CHOOSE a graphical seperation of TOE and ABIOG(enisis) as is discussed NOT ingernal IN THIS THREAD but remands in the blue-print or whatever color scheme is used in reconstuction of any proposed dissection. The dissection is not the section of seperation even if metadata be stored methodically. The gene point and the point physics are not textually seperated anymore in this discussion, hypothetically. I personally think that evergreen seeds fall to the sun and angiosperm seeds fall to the earth but hey, that is just me.
Cognitive dissonace is irrelavant. It is how you think of deceptive evolution individually (Fire flies out blinking other fire flies, do plants really have neuroendocrinological valences etc).
The theory of evolution deals with synthetic biology in so far as there are or we can delimit the limits of natural selection BY artifical selection. If you are a Fisherist you will not think necessarily that fitness and the second law of thermo are more than kissing cousins, otherwise you might make sure you are not within kissing distance of this idea. This is not a matter of belief, in so far as I have analyzed it properly but only about the d-sep tests that distiguish cases of acyclic and cyclic representations so pre-printed before the tests contra morality ensue or were already violated.
The more viscous nature of the science in creationism is less likely to cause this violation prima facie as relevant inter thread alia. But as for the degree of incredulity one might sense at first, and sometimes with first hand experience, moving OFF the topic in this particular thread,"recent, supernatural creation" has to be taken as the three words that it WAS not as is 'read' readability included.
Ruse for instance refused to admit that there was a difference of terms "creation science " and "scientific creationism". There just is. Thus his more general sympathy, say with DS WILSON etc , towards the social nature of creationism IS LOST MENTALLY in such writings of e/c simply by failure to locate the group involved. I admit I am not a dillitant of creationism and am likely to step on some creationistic mice now and then but I am ready to be corrected on that. What you say here does not seem to indicate what you think will change if a cloned human population were made on Mars. Instead you seem be thinking that "no change" from creationism (as they aready said it was "supernatural") as iano said and yet there is so much writing between the two of yous such that I cant see how what both of you say has anything to do with the time when the "recent" becomes "now". Is that too thick or can that be thought by you?
Agains you say "philosophy" but it would be "Scientific Creationism" rather than "creation science" on my reading if ICR's GENEs dominate the genomic influence(the origin of genetic information) of baraminologists on general directions within research stratgies to be engineered, hopefully with proper controls, both inside and outside secular research universities.
Quote from PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE by Hermann Weyl
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 05:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 10:07 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-06-2005 11:40 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 124 of 152 (240570)
09-05-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
09-02-2005 2:49 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
I messed up my trees!
I had actually thought the angiosperm goes to the sun not the evergreens.
This might invert some perimeter a meter or so, so it might matter but I have not found anyone reading my own posts as closely as I do. The trees between Oxford and Cambridge are way too straight. Iguess the earth got in my way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 2:49 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:38 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 125 of 152 (240596)
09-05-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-02-2005 3:28 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
AEA writes:
The ToE has enough substantiation to convince the neutral observer upon review of the evidence.
It has enough substantiation to convince - within the boundaries set for theories. I'm not arguing well substantiated. I'm asking how does one calibrate theory at all - given that there is no objective standard to compare a 'well-substantiated' theory with to find out whether it offers a 2% explanation or a 92% explanation of what happened.
Scientific theories are as strong as the evidence that substantiates them.
Same question here as above
I read the first of these links and as suspected equivocation is the norm. "What is a species" being first up. Seems like it is not really clear. And when all is said and done the experiements with flies and worms and plants produced.... flies and worms and plants. Surmising that evolution occurs because an obeservation agrees with it doesn't mean it occurs. In order to be sure it occurs you would need to objective evidence not circumstantial evidence. That's what I meant about mystery. Know one will know this because of the time scales that are supposed to be necessary for it.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-02-2005 3:28 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-06-2005 11:58 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 126 of 152 (240597)
09-05-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Brad McFall
09-05-2005 12:34 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
iano writes:
This might invert some perimeter a meter or so, so it might matter but I have not found anyone reading my own posts as closely as I do. The trees between Oxford and Cambridge are way too straight. Iguess the earth got in my way.
I suspect that's because your bright. You are too bright for me anyway. I'm a learn-how-to-pass-exams-get-your-degree-then rely-on-your-natural-ability kind of mechanical engineer, who only started thinking about anything 4 years ago. A baby when it comes to thinking. Like I have this thing called the bible which explains it backwards, forwards and sideways - and still it is a rare enough event that I get that...
If you want me to get it Brad...then you gotta spell it out for me. Otherwise I can't know

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Brad McFall, posted 09-05-2005 12:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Brad McFall, posted 09-05-2005 5:59 PM iano has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 127 of 152 (240657)
09-05-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by iano
09-05-2005 1:38 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
Keep the Bible, we need such in today'snow time.
I didnt want you to think that AEA could get a move on the difference of seeds from within a Copernican thought or by an alien one. It is true that life might have been "seeded" from Bettlejuice and we are all hitchhikers on our genes but I NEVER think this and end up thinking about how Darwin thought of seeds instead.
When I am driving through the country or riding I should say I see the trees and my mind wanders to the shape difference of the greens. I merely have related this provisionally to different uses of inertia by the plants. A seed falling to the ground (Newton's supposed apple) is could actually be falling to the sun but the soil prevents it from getting there. No I do not have a purple/green thumb. I had thought with that that Gymnosperm pine cones do not move in this trajectory(my mental space for plant anantomy is dwarfed by its contents on herpetology) but rather orbit the sun with the Earth rather than perpendicular to it. I dont know but I find think about agriculture much better for humanities survival of the next 100s than sending out radio waves to contact an alien to tell us how to make life grow in silicon. If synthetic biologists do not "police" themselves then I see no reason why the 70s environmental movement shouldnt come down even harder on the "labs".
Thanks for the compliment. I dont think that the realms are seperate as AEA thinks in case he was a head of you and me in this thread, virtually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by iano, posted 09-06-2005 11:28 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 128 of 152 (240814)
09-06-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Brad McFall
09-05-2005 5:59 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
brad mcfall writes:
Keep the Bible, we need such in today'snow time.
It's all we need. And one day it won't be necessary at all. "Now we see dimly..."
I dont know but I find think about agriculture much better for humanities survival of the next 100s
If its seconds you mean then I'm more optimistic. if you mean hundreds then I'm afraid I wouldn't be placing bets on it. I ain't an end-is-nigh-er but it stands to (my) reason we'll trash ourselves before then
Thanks for the compliment. I dont think that the realms are seperate as AEA thinks in case he was a head of you and me in this thread, virtually.
For what reason do you think that. Remember I ain't that bright. And I don't have the werewithal to read up on Copernicus. There are only 24 hours in a day (I reckon)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Brad McFall, posted 09-05-2005 5:59 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 152 (240816)
09-06-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Brad McFall
09-02-2005 5:23 PM


Re: the tailor or the cook, you decide
Brad McFall writes:
As long as there is some original mystery it is not possible to seperate origin from rates of change since any supposed starting point preCISEly due to the size derivable from Weyl's
I’m getting the impression that English is not your mother tongue. I apologize but it’s making it very hard to follow your lines of thought.
Are you suggesting that the ToE depends on some mathematical distribution based on the origin of man to be valid? I really don’t see how this line of reasoning is valid much less useful to our current discussion but maybe I’m dealing with a language barrier. Please explain.
Brad McFall writes:
quote:
Here we have attempted to develop the formal scheme of genetics in such general form as to comprise all more or less irregular occurrences. Nowhere in this scheme was it necessary so far to speak of sex; but of course the fact cannot be ignored forever that syngamy between two gametes takes place only if one is a sperm, the other an egg. This is a polarity (gamete sexuality) that has nothing to do with genes.^(Denote by --- an organism arising from ...)On the other hand...
Thus while we can be in basic data agreement, as I do believe you and I are, unless you are, inaddition to be a seperatist of the Gouldian variatey etc, you are a FISHERIST or an HALDANIST (IE NOT A CROIZATIST etc) there is no way to CHOOSE a graphical seperation of TOE and ABIOG(enisis) as is discussed NOT ingernal IN THIS THREAD but remands in the blue-print or whatever color scheme is used in reconstuction of any proposed dissection. The dissection is not the section of seperation even if metadata be stored methodically. The gene point and the point physics are not textually seperated anymore in this discussion, hypothetically. I personally think that evergreen seeds fall to the sun and angiosperm seeds fall to the earth but hey, that is just me.
To take a quote from one of my favorite movies: “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.” - Westley (The Princess Bride)
It’s rather easy actually. The ToE is separated from Abio due to the fact that the ToE requires DNA to already be present to evolve. When it comes down to it, some watered down version of ID would be compatible with the ToE since the ToE does not hold an opinion on where the first organism came from. Abio, OTOH, is completely at odds with ID (unless ID retreats to simply stating your god created the universe and set into play the forces that would bring about Abio and the ToE).
By now you should be able to discern a pattern though. ID is making claims about the physical universe (only in the realm of biological origins). In doing so theistic philosophers risk using the same logic that brought us the geocentric universe. Although there is not overwhelming evidence for Abio yet, to believe that there never will be any is ignoring the fact that science is advancing every day. Do you really think we’ve hit the limits of our scientific knowledge enough that it’s safe to assume that “goddidit”? You are making the same mistake as your philosophical ancestors.
Cognitive dissonace is irrelavant. It is how you think of deceptive evolution individually (Fire flies out blinking other fire flies, do plants really have neuroendocrinological valences etc).
The cognitive dissonance is at the very core of why the ToE isn’t accepted by theistic philosophers. They cling unnecessarily to their past belief that man was created just as he is in a “poof” like fashion from magic words uttered by an invisible man. It is cognitive dissonance that causes the theistic philosopher to posit some deceptive worldwide conspiracy rather than accept the truth that man evolved into his current form.
The theory of evolution deals with synthetic biology in so far as there are or we can delimit the limits of natural selection BY artifical selection. If you are a Fisherist you will not think necessarily that fitness and the second law of thermo are more than kissing cousins, otherwise you might make sure you are not within kissing distance of this idea. This is not a matter of belief, in so far as I have analyzed it properly but only about the d-sep tests that distiguish cases of acyclic and cyclic representations so pre-printed before the tests contra morality ensue or were already violated.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. Are you positing a problem with 2LoT or morality? I don’t see how these are connected at all.
The more viscous nature of the science in creationism is less likely to cause this violation prima facie as relevant inter thread alia. But as for the degree of incredulity one might sense at first, and sometimes with first hand experience, moving OFF the topic in this particular thread,"recent, supernatural creation" has to be taken as the three words that it WAS not as is 'read' readability included.
Again, I’m not sure what you’re driving at here but in my experience there is no “science” in creationism. If you start with an ad hoc conclusion, seek only evidence to support your ad hoc conclusion, and deny evidence that would falsify your ad hoc conclusion then you are not doing science.
Ruse for instance refused to admit that there was a difference of terms "creation science " and "scientific creationism". There just is. Thus his more general sympathy, say with DS WILSON etc , towards the social nature of creationism IS LOST MENTALLY in such writings of e/c simply by failure to locate the group involved. I admit I am not a dillitant of creationism and am likely to step on some creationistic mice now and then but I am ready to be corrected on that. What you say here does not seem to indicate what you think will change if a cloned human population were made on Mars. Instead you seem be thinking that "no change" from creationism (as they aready said it was "supernatural") as iano said and yet there is so much writing between the two of yous such that I cant see how what both of you say has anything to do with the time when the "recent" becomes "now". Is that too thick or can that be thought by you?
I have no disjunct between what HAS HAPPENED and correlating it with what IS HAPPENING and understanding what the FUTURE IMPLICATIONS are. Apparently iano and I (and possibly you) can’t even agree that if science and theistic philosophy are to be separated then where that separation lies. The physical world is science’s domain. It is what science is made for. If science has evidence that contradicts a philosophical belief then the philosopher must reevaluate his/her belief since science is the authority in the matter. In contrast, science can not (nor does it) make claims about the supernatural. When a person refuses to accept a scientific theory because it does not coincide with their ad hoc philosophical conclusions then they are being unreasonable.
Agains you say "philosophy" but it would be "Scientific Creationism" rather than "creation science" on my reading if ICR's GENEs dominate the genomic influence(the origin of genetic information) of baraminologists on general directions within research stratgies to be engineered, hopefully with proper controls, both inside and outside secular research universities.
Again, any derivative of the words “science” and “creationism” will be an oxymoron. When these “scientists” start with an ad hoc conclusion and shoehorn evidence to support it then they are not conducting science at all. Pages like this one put it all in perspective: Statement of Faith

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 5:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 3:57 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 152 (240818)
09-06-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by iano
09-05-2005 1:31 PM


How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
The ToE has enough substantiation to convince the neutral observer upon review of the evidence.
It has enough substantiation to convince - within the boundaries set for theories. I'm not arguing well substantiated. I'm asking how does one calibrate theory at all - given that there is no objective standard to compare a 'well-substantiated' theory with to find out whether it offers a 2% explanation or a 92% explanation of what happened.
One bite at a time iano. Even if a current valid theory only explains .001 of the universe then we can build on it and/or use it to develop other theories to get to .002. At least it’s moving in the right direction. Positing a supernatural explanation and stopping yields a big fat 0 in the advancement of mankind.
Scientific theories are as strong as the evidence that substantiates them.
Same question here as above
I read the first of these links and as suspected equivocation is the norm. "What is a species" being first up. Seems like it is not really clear. And when all is said and done the experiements with flies and worms and plants produced.... flies and worms and plants. Surmising that evolution occurs because an obeservation agrees with it doesn't mean it occurs. In order to be sure it occurs you would need to objective evidence not circumstantial evidence. That's what I meant about mystery. Know one will know this because of the time scales that are supposed to be necessary for it.
This is what I mean by moving goalposts. You said speciation has not been observed. Well I showed you that it has. Now you are claiming that this observed speciation is not good enough for whatever reason. Flies and worms are made of the same stuff we are iano. We are animals. The same things that are observed to happen in flies and worms happen in Humans. Speciation has been observed.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:31 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 7:46 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 131 of 152 (240973)
09-07-2005 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-06-2005 11:58 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
iano writes:
It has enough substantiation to convince - within the boundaries set for theories. I'm not arguing well substantiated. I'm asking how does one calibrate theory at all - given that there is no objective standard to compare a 'well-substantiated' theory with to find out whether it offers a 2% explanation or a 92% explanation of what happened.
AEA writes:
One bite at a time iano. Even if a current valid theory only explains .001 of the universe then we can build on it and/or use it to develop other theories to get to .002. At least it’s moving in the right direction. Positing a supernatural explanation and stopping yields a big fat 0 in the advancement of mankind.
'Right direction' suffers the same problems as 'well-substantiated'. Against what is this direction being calibrated in order to know it is the right one. You posit advancement of mankind as the datum against which to measure. That is a completely subjective datum to chose: both in terms of advancement at all being the the correct datum and 'advancement' as you experience it being in fact advancement. Many would think man is going backwards. And they ain't all creationists
This is what I mean by moving goalposts. You said speciation has not been observed.
No I didn't. I couldn't have given that I had never heard the word speciation before I said you can't see one species turn into another. One worm turning into another worm is not a species changing into another. It is a species changing period. Thats micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Speciation is observational evidence that fits macro-evolution but it fits micro-evolution more completely. It's not moving goalposts, its defining what they are

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-06-2005 11:58 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ramoss, posted 09-07-2005 8:49 AM iano has not replied
 Message 133 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-07-2005 9:20 AM iano has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 132 of 152 (240977)
09-07-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by iano
09-07-2005 7:46 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
Oh yes, the redefining of things after the presentation of evidence.
You said that you don't see one species turning into another species. That is known as speciation. The fact you didn't know that term doesn't mean that doesn't describe 'One species turning into another'.
Those events are showing how one species can turn into two seperate species.. where they can not interbreed. What happens at that juncture is that each species goes their own merry way, and if put under the proper environmental pressure, you will see a bigger and bigger differnces.
That is how Chimps and humans can share a common ancestor. You asked for how one species can turn into another, that was shown. The concept of evolution insistes on SMALL changes at one time.. not large ones. Baby steps, baby steps.
That is why you are moving the goal posts. You asked for 'changing into another species'. That was shown. YOu then moved the goal posts and said 'But they are the same KIND'. For example, the faero island mouse is sitll a mouse, yes, but it is a different SPECIES of mouse.
Maybe you don't know what a species is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 7:46 AM iano has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 152 (240984)
09-07-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by iano
09-07-2005 7:46 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
One bite at a time iano. Even if a current valid theory only explains .001 of the universe then we can build on it and/or use it to develop other theories to get to .002. At least it’s moving in the right direction. Positing a supernatural explanation and stopping yields a big fat 0 in the advancement of mankind.
'Right direction' suffers the same problems as 'well-substantiated'. Against what is this direction being calibrated in order to know it is the right one. You posit advancement of mankind as the datum against which to measure. That is a completely subjective datum to chose: both in terms of advancement at all being the the correct datum and 'advancement' as you experience it being in fact advancement. Many would think man is going backwards. And they ain't all creationists
Okay, now I think you are just arguing for argument’s sake. Do you NOT think acquiring knowledge about the universe we live in the “right direction”?
This is what I mean by moving goalposts. You said speciation has not been observed.
No I didn't. I couldn't have given that I had never heard the word speciation before I said you can't see one species turn into another. One worm turning into another worm is not a species changing into another. It is a species changing period. Thats micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Speciation is observational evidence that fits macro-evolution but it fits micro-evolution more completely. It's not moving goalposts, its defining what they are
Actually, one species turning into another IS speciation.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia writes:
Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are three main ideas concerning the creation of new species (Speciation mechanisms), each based on the degree to which populations undergoing this process are geographically isolated from one another. Speciation mechanisms include allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, and parapatric speciation.
Ernst Mayr proposed a speciation mechanism referred to as allopatric speciation. In allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated allopatric populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation or emigration). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as they a) become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures and b) they independently undergo genetic drift. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes. (emphasis added)
From: Wikipedia: Speciation
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia writes:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
From: Wikipedia: Microevolution

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 7:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 11:22 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 134 of 152 (241016)
09-07-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-07-2005 9:20 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
Okay, now I think you are just arguing for argument’s sake. Do you NOT think acquiring knowledge about the universe we live in the “right direction”?
I am not arguing for arguings sake - although that is a trap to be avoided. Acquiring knowledge about the universe is no bad thing in itself. But it is open to debate as to whether the OUR acquisition of knowledge has been a good thing or a bad thing. You call it advancement and it has, no doubt, led to improvement for mankind. However there is an undoubted and very significant downside - as a result of this self-same knowledge. There are as many grounds to say the glass is half full as it is the glass is half empty. Every bit of knowledge gets used for both 'good' and 'bad'. As 'right directions' go I don't think the case for 'acquiring knowledge is the right direction' is a clear cut as you say.
(I work in the food industry and in 12 years I have yet (in all the many meeting I have been at) to hear the word 'nutrition' mentioned (yield increase, drip loss, binding fats within meats, how to disguise useful but undesirable ingredients in labelling etc etc do form the area of interest - money) . I could talk abit about the appliance of science in this field - but I don't want to put you off your dinner )
Actually, one species turning into another IS speciation.
http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec18_05.html.
The following is from an interesting article (linked above) on experiments to see if speciation could occur (the text includes statements in the context that presumes evolution is occuring so it is, I take it, not a creationist website)
[qs]I. Experimental evidence for allopatric speciation.
A. Speciation in laboratory populations
1. Speciation as a process in nature is very difficult to study because one is never sure exactly where it is occurring; it can also take a long time.
2. For these reasons, some investigators have attempted to try to bring speciation into the laboratory. In effect, they have set up experiments in which they have tried [/b]to cause speciation [/b] to occur, and observed what happens. The first example I wish to discuss today is an experiment of this type.[/qs]
Which brings us back nicely to the issue of abiogenesis. I posed that manipulating elements to create life says nothing about whether abiogenesis occurred. No experiment could produce life in an undirected and unintelligent way. Scientists applying the full force of intelligence, time and money can do it but that is a quite different thing altogether. One could say the space shuttle could appear out of a pile of nuts and bolts because the application of intelligence time and money showed it could be done. In fact, the appearance of a space shuttle from junk must be considered more likely given that the application of intelligence, time and money has produced a result - whereas abiogenesists haven't. (If you think I'm arguing for arguing sakes by producting such a patently absurd comparison then by all means indicate where it is patently absurd).
The same appears to be true of speciation. In reading the above section I would ask you to note the following:
In nature (where evolution has supposedly happened a) one is never sure if it occuring b) it takes a very long time for it to happen (which makes it unlikely that anyone will ever know). Yet the (evolutionary) author says it is going on. Why? Classic evolutionary thinking. Evolution is assumed from the outset therefore speciation must be going on. Now a scientist in a lab who starts out with a theory that speciation happens and sets up an experiment to cause it to happen can expect, quite often, to be rewarded with the result he has caused to happen. I design machinery from time to time to fit a specific purpose. Although I enjoy doing it and am taxed in dealing with all the constraints which push in on my initally simplistic Occams Razor style design, I am not surprised (although I am pleased) when eventually the final product does what I am trying to make it do.
But so what? Concluding that something happens in nature from a completely artificial (and massively simplistic lab experiment, the conditions of which don't happen in nature, says nothing about the thing actually happening in nature. It's another could be - not another is. Science has brought it's full might to bear to design a space shuttle.
This all fits the theory but I can't help wondering what couldn't fit the theory if enough effort is employed in order to cause it to fit. Don't you see even a touch of science-of-the-gaps here? Is this knowledge not in fact pseudo-knowledge? An experiment whose conclusions (man can design a situation whereby flies undergo 'speciation') are extrapolated to say speciation is occurring (without mans directed intervention) in nature. The word speciation appears to describe the lab result. Is there a reason to transpose it into the natural world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-07-2005 9:20 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ramoss, posted 09-07-2005 11:41 AM iano has replied
 Message 136 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-07-2005 12:59 PM iano has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 135 of 152 (241024)
09-07-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by iano
09-07-2005 11:22 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
Not quite right. While we won't know how it happened from a historical point of view, the experiments can show it MIGHT have happened. There are probably many paths to get from just plain organic chemical reactions to the condition we can reconise as life. It won't be a 'brute force' method, but only observing what happens to various chemicals in certain conditions. That won't say that things happened exactly that way, but it will show how things very well could have happened without the need of some mythical being tampering with things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 11:22 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 3:54 PM ramoss has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024