Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relevance of origins to modern science
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


(1)
Message 5 of 124 (707152)
09-24-2013 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 5:34 AM


quote:
1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?
It's kind of a strange question. It's like asking what significance bread has for food. Bread is food, and the study of origins is science. Learning cosmic, chemical and biological origins is just as much a scientific pursuit as learning how to make a new vaccine.
In any case, biological evolution certainly is useful for understanding all kinds of things in biology. If you want to know the mutation rate in a region of the human genome (something that is useful for all kinds of reasons), for example, the easiest way is to compare the human and chimpanzee genomes; this only makes sense if they share a common ancestor. If you want to find regions of the genome that have been under recent positive selection, you again compare genomes.
quote:
2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...
Darwinist ideas are used as the basis for inference because they explain and predict data very well. When non-Darwinian ideas do a better job with the data (e.g. with horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis), then biologists have no trouble adopting them. If someone wants to replace Darwinian ideas wholesale in biology, all he or she has to do is explain the data better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 5:34 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 16 of 124 (707168)
09-24-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 10:53 AM


quote:
I understand. The data set, however, is genetics, so if comparing an ape with a human, there is much genetic similarity. The point I wanted to get across is that since there are genetic similarities witnessed in apes and man, there is already sufficient information to carry out testing (whatever that may be). Anything more is not necessary.
And the point I was trying to make in my previous response is that genetic similarity is not all that is necessary to make certain kinds of very useful inference. Only common ancestry works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 10:53 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 17 of 124 (707170)
09-24-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 11:26 AM


quote:
I guess that may be true. If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people? Unfortunately,we can't live long, thus the scope if observations is highly restricted. We as Scientist have to hope that our assumptions of parameters that vary, are true, otherwise the model cannot work. E.g. the assumption that conditions were suitable for chemicals to form amino acids, RNA or simple Data molecules. Furthermore it would be a bias endeavor to infer that a certain type of rock would support the existence of such conditions.
Thus in support of my original statement, The scientist has to apply belief - which is not a solely religious word but also forms the basis of religion.
That's not how science works. We don't just say, "Hey, if these conditions had been around, then amino acids could have formed." That idea presents a hypothesis, not a conclusion; the hypothesis is that those conditions really did exist on the Earth when life first appeared. The scientist will immediately look for ways to test that hypothesis: What kinds of traces would those conditions have left behind that we can observe today? If it can't be tested, then it remains nothing but a hypothesis. Belief is not required; evidence is.
The other thing scientists look for is consistency: Would those conditions have permitted the formation of the other chemicals needed for life to start? Can a consistent, plausible scenario for all the data be worked out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 11:26 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2524 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 68 of 124 (707533)
09-28-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
09-28-2013 6:55 AM


quote:
What defines a legitimate religious belief?
Nothing. There are just religious beliefs, with no standard to define which are legitimate. (Well, maybe God gets to decide, but we have no objective means for determining his opinion on the subject.)
quote:
Is a universe created in six days (not seven) a religious belief?
Undoubtedly -- as the U.S. courts have noted.
quote:
Is not eating meat on Fridays?
That's a religious practice. The belief that one should refrain from meat on Fridays is a religious belief.
quote:
If someone out there has what they claim is a religious belief to not step on cracks in the sidewalk, is it truly a religious belief that the rest us must accept as legitimate?
If someone actually holds the belief, then it's a religious belief. (Deciding whether someone really holds that belief is a different question.) What you mean by "legitimate" here I don't know.
quote:
But clearly none of those beliefs I mentioned have anything to do with one's personal relationship with God, with spirituality. I know there are many people who disagree, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Which is to say, you've defined your religious beliefs as the only legitimate ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-28-2013 6:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 09-28-2013 11:30 AM sfs has 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