Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 198 (199497)
04-14-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 10:14 PM


If what you're saying is that, there may come a time when the expanding scope of our body of evidence contradicts rather than supports evolution; and at that time continued support of evolutionary theory is unscientific particularly in the light of a competing future theory that works better - I don't think anyone will disagree with you.
That's really the neat thing about science - expanding knowledge leaves theories in the dust, even the ones we support so stridently. No theory is truly immune from the passage of time, or more accurately, our ever-expanding knowledge about the universe.
It's really quite romantic in a way. (In the meantime, however, evolution is still the most accurate model we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth.)
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-14-2005 10:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 10:14 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 04-15-2005 12:06 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 34 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-15-2005 1:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 198 (199775)
04-16-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-16-2005 2:51 PM


They assert the methodology of science as being the only valid path to reliable knowledge -- which effectively disregards any concept of revelation from God.
Maybe that's because nobody has ever been able to answer the most important question about that - how would we distinguish between revalation from God and somebody making stuff up?
Any faith in God, however, seems to come from revelation -- faith begins at the point where the scientific method ends
Faith begins at the point where you decide that you no longer have to follow evidence to conclusions - you can simply jump to whatever conclusion you like best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 2:51 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 7:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 198 (199809)
04-16-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-16-2005 7:21 PM


By testing it according to the scientific method.
How can revelation be accessable to the scientific method? How would you tell the difference between genuine lies and a revelation from a God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? There is no way. There's simply no way to test for revelation; there's no possible way to distinguish between genuine revelation and a sufficiently compelling lie.
Exactly -- just like anyone who puts their faith in logical positivism as the only means to reliable knowledge.
That's not jumping to a conclusion. That's a conclusion from the observation that the scientific method, and other varieties of empiricism, are the only means to knowledge that is distinguishable from making stuff up.
We don't jump to the conclusion that empiricism is the best. That's a conclusion we arrive at from the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 7:21 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-17-2005 12:53 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 198 (199829)
04-17-2005 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-17-2005 12:53 AM


Who said God is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?
Well, the people who believe in him, for one. Since I don't, I really have no choice but to take them at their word, now don't I?
Otherwise, maybe we should clarify exactly what this "God" thing is, in the first place. Like Dan once said, we keep asking who he is, but all we get in reply is his resume.
In the above question, I would answer, "Test them according to the standards of scientific inquiry."
That's just begging the question. How would you apply the standards of scientific inquiry to determine the difference between genuine and pretend revelation?
I think that revelation can be tested very much.
Well, I'm glad you think so, but this would be the third post now where I'm forced to ask you, how?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-17-2005 12:53 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-17-2005 4:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 198 (199895)
04-17-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-17-2005 4:01 AM


Actually, I've never heard anyone who beleives in the Judeo-Christian God claim that "God is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence."
Really? You've never heard this? I have to say, it's a very common claim, even around here. The claim is that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith. Hey, I don't know. I dont understand what God is supposed to be in the first place, so don't ask me.
Why would you have no choice to accept what they say about him if you didn't actually believe in him in the first place?
Because we're talking about a concept of their invention. They invent the concept ("god"), they get to define the terms. It's really just a point of politeness, I guess.
Even if God doesn't exist, and the whole Scriptures are nothing more than a myth-like fairy-tale, it can still provide a useful inspiration for one to explore the nature of the universe -- just like any other pseudo-science.
I guess, unlike others, I don't find this to be a contentious position. Stradonitz developed the ring structure of Benzene after dreaming of an ouroboros. Sometimes scientists get ideas from science fiction. I heard of a guy that invented a new kind of wheel from reading Ezekiel. Any old thing might turn out to be the inspiration for scientific thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-17-2005 4:01 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 198 (200036)
04-18-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-17-2005 7:23 PM


Science fiction seems to have predicted the technological and scientific marvels of the atomic age and space ages.
I actually did quite a bit of research on this, and this turns out not to be the case. While its for the most part true that, given any modern technology, you can probably find a precursor in the sci-fi literature that predates it, a fair bit of this can be ascribed to the "shotgun" effect - if you have enough writers making different predictions, some of them are bound to come true. Consider all the ridiculous, impossible sci-fi "predictions":
1) Artifical gravity fields
2) Energy/force shields
3) Teleportation
4) Faster-than-light spaceships
You get the point. I've tried to pick things that aren't simply as-yet-uninvented, but are actually physically impossible as we understand the universe. These predictions simply won't pan out in the universe we know.
For that matter, a fair number of these "predictions" are simply statements that we, from the vantage point of the future, have retrodacted beyond their original or obvious meaning. For that matter, sci-fi fandom considerably intersects with technical expertise in most fields. I mean, naturally, the tech nerds at Motorola must surely have been thinking of Star Trek when they designed a generation of compact cellular phones:
Prediction? Or "self-fulfilling prophecy"? Does the Star Trek communicator so resemble our cell phones because Gene Roddenberry had a sixth sense, or because the designers of our phones were influenced by an adolescence of Star Trek reruns?
Sci-Fi as a genre, moreso than any other genre, largely concerns itself with human technologies, science, and the future. Exotic locales and advanced toys. The purpose of sci-fi is not, however, futurism - it's not about what will be, but what might be; we shouldn't be overly surprised when some of those might-be's turn out to be what is. If you make enough different guesses, eventually one of them turns out to be right. Hit vs. miss, sci-fi isn't really any better at prediction than anything else.
And if that's not enough, there's usually someone so excited about some piece of fictional gadgetry that they want to try to take it off the page and into reality. That's a testament not to the predictive power of sci-fi, but to its power to capture and excite the imagination.
That, and that it is often from metaphysics (the imaginitive conjectures of our mind) that truly authentic science has often emerged.
I think that you're far too generous in describing these influences as "metaphysics." That implies a considerably greater degree of rigor than is actually present. Scientists get weird ideas from all different sources; some turn out to be right but the vast majority turn out to be very, very wrong. When a scientist's hunch or dream does pan out, that's a testament to their ability as a scientist, not to the value of whatever idle midsummer's fancy sent them down that direction in the first place.
Like I said I don't particularly contest your position, but I don't find it particularly earth-shattering, either. In regards to the creationism debate, creationists aren't simply advancing their doctrines as an inspiration for scientific inquiry, but as a replacement for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-17-2005 7:23 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-18-2005 6:01 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 9:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 198 (200191)
04-18-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-18-2005 4:47 PM


I guess I see this as a similar analogy to a management principle/technique otherwise known as Pareto's Law.
Ah, much akin to the Discordian's Law of Fives:
quote:
The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.
It turns out that, if you look hard enough, the Law of Fives will never turn out to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-18-2005 4:47 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 8:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 198 (201170)
04-22-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-21-2005 9:24 PM


Instead, I'm encouraging those involved in the theory to take a closer look at the the "source" of the materialist underpinnings that have often been associated with it -- such as Huxley's "pseudo-scientific" thoughts that religion and faith should be mutually exclusive.
I guess I don't see the merit of that investigation, except as historical curiosity. For instance, to get back to the Stradonitz example, he may have been inspired by a dream, but when we teach about benzene in class and how we know about its ring structure, we reference x-ray crystallography, not his journals. His dream isn't relevant to the prosecution of scientific endeavor except as trivia.
If this happens, I also think that some of the initial patterns observed within string theories will bear an uncanny resemblance to the "missing links" in the hypothetical future I predicted for evolutionary tests.
Uh, well, ok. We'll make a bet. As Burns said to Smithers, if all that happens, I owe you a Coke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-21-2005 9:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 198 (201416)
04-23-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 12:04 AM


If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly
Likewise, if you have a huge mutation in an organism, it's still an organism; a huge mutation in a eukaryote is still a eukaryote; a huge mutation in a cynodont is still a cynodont; a huge mutation in a mammal is still a mammal, etc.
Evolution doesn't predict that species will change their "essence" or jump to another branch of the tree; it predicts that the words we apply to a group of organisms will contain more and more species in that group over time. Pointing out that the decendants of fruit flies are always fruit flies is both an argument from incredulity, a strawman, and mistaken support for some kind of species essentialism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 12:04 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 198 (201923)
04-24-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-24-2005 3:35 PM


It does propose it in the sense that from primordial cells evolution can eventually produce the diversity of life we see today.
That's hardly "unlimited plasticity." In fact the great similarity and lack of true novelty across the biological spectrum is a powerful indication of common descent.
While certain animals rights groups might object to the genetic violation of these creatures inherent "chimpanzeeness", it seems to me that a project of this magnitude would certainly attract a large base of researchers.
What on Earth would we learn from such an experiment? Furthermore why do it the hard way when we could simply take a chimp zygote, knock out its nucleus, and insert human DNA? What would be the functional difference?
I would, however, simply enjoy hearing what anyone has to offer for something like this to actaully transpire.
I guess I'd like it if you could clarify exactly what you think the benefit of this process would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 3:35 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2005 7:43 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 198 (202037)
04-25-2005 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-24-2005 9:02 PM


The insistence that the "lack of true novelty across the biological spectrum is a powerful indication of common descent" is based on the assumptions that life could only arise as we see it today because of the conditions on the earth were the way they were.
Er, no, it's based on observation.
In other words, what you've just said sounds very similar to the Anthropic Principle that creationists often use to counter (unsuccessfully I might add) evolutionary claims.
In what way? What I've just said is an observation - there's very little biological novelty. There's almost no feature of any organism you can point to for which you can't find some precursor in another related organism.
I don't see the least similarity to an argument from the Anthropic Principle.
I already explained what it would display on a philosphical level.
No, you didn't. If you had, or had explained to sufficient clarity, I wouldn't have had to ask.
On a scientific level, it would essentially prove that the greater claims of the theory of evoltion are a fact.
No, it really wouldn't.
In other words, humanity could say with 100% certainty that evolutionary mechanisms CAN produce what we're claiming they can produce -- and they would have perfectly documented evidence of it.
But since they didn't employ evolutionary mechanisms to achive the outcome, how could they be said to have done that? They'd have evidence of no such thing.
Reaching in and modifying DNA to achieve a desired outcome isn't an evolutionary process; it isn't even close to an evolutionary process. In fact it's the exact opposite of random mutation and natural selection; it's more like specified mutation and random selection.
Because this isn't proving that the greater claims of evolution are 100% certain -- unless, or course, one thinks that a human being was born immediately from a lesser primate without any intermedite stages.
Well, of course no one thinks that. But what you're describing isn't close to the evolutionary model, either. It's as cartoonish an oversimplifcation of the historical reality as the idea of a chimp giving birth to humanity in one signle saltational event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:02 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 198 (202247)
04-25-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-25-2005 2:11 PM


Yes. I know it's based on observations.
Well, then why did you say it was based on assumptions?
But, if some conditions has been different in the past, the process of natural selection could have produced a totally different product.
Certainly. That product would have been characterized by a lack of novelty across the biological spectrum, just like this one is.
Do you understand what I'm trying to explain?
Yes, completely. What I don't understand is why you think anyone disagrees.
If some initial conditions had been different, totally different species could have been formed -- which is what I mean by unlimited plasticity.
But that's not the plasticity of adaptation or of species, that's the plasticity of initial conditions. Given any initial conditions you choose, the biosphere you wind up with is going to be characterized by great similarity between organisms and a lack of true biological novely across the spectrum of living things.
There's not "unlimited plasticity." There's relatively few constraints on initial conditions, but the processes of evolution excercise more constraint on the eventual forms that will arise.
The theory of evolution basically states that if some of the finely-balanced species were not finely-tuned then the speciation of life on earth could have grossly different properties. Some have claimed that this is evidence for a lack of true novelty.
Er, no. No matter what initial conditions or species, the eventual result is going to be characterized by similarities between species and a certain lack of biological novelty, because that's a constraint imposed by how evolution has to work.
We observe the lack, we don't need evidence for it. That observation is consistent with the processes of evolution. If there was an enormous amount of biological novelty, and organisms bore no relationship to their parents and biological structures for which there were no precursors were common, that would be evidence against evolution.
On the one hand, athiestic scientists would probably love the chance to prove certain fundamentalist groups wrong when they say it can't be done. On the other hand, theistic evolutionists could then enjoy partaking in the creation of life as their Lord did ages ago.
How would either of those things be the case?
Yes, but doesn't this statement discount the forced evolution that's being conducted in the labs?
You're not even forcing evolution in this experiment, because you're not employing natural selection and random mutation. You're simply genetically engineering a pre-defined outcome. How is that evolution?
Yet Darwin himself saw a close parallel between the artificial selection of breeders and the natural selection of nature.
The breeders are using random mutation and "artificial" selection. You're using neither. The example of animal breeders doesn't apply to what you're doing.
Why would this not be considered a simulation of evolution if we are exprimenting with chimp DNA, inserting, modifying, and deleting certain sequences?
Because the origin of those changes is not random. It's "specified", to use a word from intelligent design. It's the exact opposite of evolution, so how would it prove evolution?
But I'm not talking about a chimp giving birth to humanity in one signle saltational event.
One saltation, several - what's the difference? What you're talking about is still saltation, not evolution. How have you employed random mutation and differential selection in your experiment? You haven't. You're simply genetically engineering a specified outcome, and perversly, doing in several steps exactly what you could accomplish in one.
I may be wrong, but I think you've now answered your own question with your statement below (which I've already quoted above).
No, I haven't, and neither have you. If we're going to ignore the processes of evolution to arrive at a specified outcome, why bother to do it the hard way? If we're going to specify the outcome, what does it matter if we specify it through a number of intermediate steps, or specify it all at once? Neither case has anything to do with evolution so why work harder than you have to?
I'm talking about genetically modifying the chimpanzees over several generations by forced evolution in a control setting
But it isn't "forced evolution." It's genetically engineering specified outcomes. That's not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution.
The idea was to, over a period of at least 200 years, simulate evolutionary processes via genetic manipulation thoughout a larger series of artificially selected saltational events. One can
quibble over the usage of artificial selection for this if they like.
But this isn't anything like the evolutionary process. So what would it prove?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 2:11 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 3:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 198 (202265)
04-25-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-25-2005 3:06 PM


I would prove that a human could indeed be descended from a chimpanzee.
But it wouldn't prove that a human could be decended from a chimpanzee by the processes of natural selection and random mutation, so what's the point?
For that matter, if we did it the simple way, in one step, it would prove the same thing - that a human could be decended from a chimpanzee. So I still don't see the rationale in doing it the hard way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 3:06 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 3:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 121 of 198 (202278)
04-25-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-25-2005 3:26 PM


Look, are you honestly saying that there would be no scientific value to an experiment such as this if it were succesful -- and that it wouldn't enhance the claims of researchers who claim that man is descended from some primitive primate?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. No scientific value whatsoever. Certainly, any little value it would have - in telling us something that we're already pretty sure about - is more than wiped out by the considerable ethical breach this experiment represents.
I mean, what you're talking about is as bad as the Nazi experiments on Jews. And even those had tangible scientific benefits that inform us to this day. Your experiment doesn't even give us that. It's an ethical abomination.
and that it wouldn't enhance the claims of researchers who claim that man is descended from some primitive primate?
What it would enhance would be the claims of those who would suggest that no principle of human dignity is safe from those godless atheistic scientists, who will have others pay any price for even the slightest - or no - gain in scientific knowledge.
We're scientists, but we're not monsters.
Consequently, instead of saying the experiment wouldn't proove evolution, how about someone simply assist me in explaining how this type of project could be done in the first place?
You've laid it out. You seem to already know how it could be done. What exactly are you asking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 3:26 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 7:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 198 (202307)
04-25-2005 4:54 PM


Duh
I'm so dumb. All credit goes to my wife who correctly pointed out something so obvious that I can't believe I've missed it so far - evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from chimpanzees.
That's a pretty crucial point. Manually engineering a human from an ape would prove something that has absolutely no relevance to evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-25-2005 7:19 PM crashfrog 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