Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 11:04 AM
337 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,798 Year: 25,404/21,208 Month: 1,031/2,338 Week: 152/450 Day: 24/52 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 361 of 936 (805811)
04-20-2017 9:19 PM


Models
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

A model, to be of any practical value, has to organize facts into a cohesive whole.

If there are a lot of facts that contradict a model it is of little value.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 362 of 936 (805812)
04-20-2017 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by herebedragons
04-20-2017 8:21 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Common sense is integral to science. But also remember that common sense it modified by experience so a fungi specialist would apply their common sense differently to a painter when considering fungi.

How would you determine what "similar organisms" are? Well the common sense approach would be to compare fungi to other fungi rather than pandas or whales.

It's rocket science only if you're a rocket scientist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by herebedragons, posted 04-20-2017 8:21 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:24 PM CRR has responded
 Message 367 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:49 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 582
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 363 of 936 (805814)
04-20-2017 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2017 3:09 AM


Re: If Not, What?
So the lucky surviving bacteria, having been exposed to the antibiotic, develop an immunity to it. This sounds similar to how a vaccine works, except instead of becoming immune to a disease (polio, for example), the bacteria become immune to a toxin.

It's a demonstrable scientific fact that some organisms develop immunity to certain diseases, but I've never heard of an organism developing immunity to a toxin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 3:09 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:34 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2017 12:45 AM Dredge has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 364 of 936 (805817)
04-20-2017 10:56 PM


YouTube on What It's Like to Talk with a Creationist (from Are Creationists Anti-Sci)
I don't normally do this, but NonStampCollector has a series of cartoon videos. This one, Special Investigation - Evolution at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs, does a good job of demonstrating what it's like to try to discuss anything with a creationist.

Comments speculate whether it's based on Richard Dawkins' interview with a creationist, Wendy Wright. Hour-long video of that at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8. First comment there was "Richard Dawkins has literally wasted an hour of his life talking to this woman."

If you do not understand the reference in the guy's name, it refers to a common response that a non-theist (or atheist) is like a non-stamp-collector; we just don't do that kind of stuff.

Edited by dwise1, : Paragraph about Dawkins video.


    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 365 of 936 (805822)
04-20-2017 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by CRR
04-20-2017 10:07 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Common sense is integral to science.

{** Major Face-Plant -- sorry, but I haven't accumulated any kind of face-plant graphics library to draw from **}

Common sense like if you drop two cannonballs, one twice as heavy as the other, the heavier one should fall faster? That is not what actually happens.

Back in the early 1980's, a science magazine published part of a "common sense" physics test someone had administered. In one question, there was a spiral track that a metal ball rolled down before that track ended and the ball continued to move in the air. Four choices were offered for the ball's final trajectory. The majority of response chose the "common sense" choice, that the ball continued to fall in a spiral manner. WRONG! That is not what actually happens.

Leading creationists and their minions would constantly appeal to "common sense." Common sense is most often completely wrong. Or as my engineer former brother-in-law would say, "Common sense is anything but common." (ironic, since he was a fundamentalist Christian and most likely a YEC as well).

How would you determine what "similar organisms" are? Well the common sense approach would be to compare fungi to other fungi rather than pandas or whales.

Was that what herbedragons was doing? Not that I can see.

It's rocket science only if you're a rocket scientist.

Just jumping in with a humorous segment I heard on NPR two to three decades ago (or possibly more). We all know those sayings, "It's not brain surgery!" and "It's not rocket science!" So what do brain surgeons and rocket scientists say? The segment found that brain surgeons would say, "It's not rocket science!" and rocket scientists would say, "It's not brain surgery!", so the two fields would just cross-reference each other.

Then there's those lines in that classic 1987 Steve Martin movie, Roxanne, in which two guys, Steve Martin and Rick Rossovich, are both in love with an astronomer, Roxanne, played by Daryl Hannah. Rick is intimidated by a strong woman (quoting from memory):

quote:

Rick: After all, it's not as if she's a rocket scientist.
Steve: Welllll, actually she is.

Edited by dwise1, : "what", nicht "was"! Verzeihung. I dachte auf Deutsch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by CRR, posted 04-20-2017 10:07 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 4:56 AM dwise1 has responded
 Message 399 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:53 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 366 of 936 (805824)
04-20-2017 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dredge
04-20-2017 10:39 PM


Re: If Not, What?
So the lucky surviving bacteria, having been exposed to the antibiotic, develop an immunity to it. This sounds similar to how a vaccine works, except instead of becoming immune to a disease (polio, for example), the bacteria become immune to a toxin.

WHAT???

Vaccines work because the body has an immune system. The immune system reacts to disease microbes by creating antibodies to fight those disease microbes. Expose the (multicellular!!!) body to disease microbes (thankfully greatly disabled enough to avoid actual infection) and that body's immune system (which implies multiple tissues and hence even more multiple cells) generates the antibodies against that disease. That is basically how vaccines work.

Single-cell organisms cannot have any immune system, since by definition a system implies multiple tissues and a tissue implies multiple cells. Basic biology.

Therefore, bacterial immunity to certain toxins is something different. Right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 10:39 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 11:55 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 367 of 936 (805826)
04-20-2017 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by CRR
04-20-2017 10:07 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Common sense is integral to science.

Sorry, but that hit a nerve that's been over-sensitized by fucking stupid creationist rhetorics.

I've been following this bullshit since 1981. Not only have I ridden around the park a few times, I have worn very deep ruts in that road.

One of the stock bullshit creationist complaints is that "evolution" (which they misrepresent grossly, hence the "scare quotes") is somehow "counter-intuitive" and will somehow "confuse the students". All while they appeal to "common sense" explanations.

As I have already just explained to CRR (Message 365), there is nothing common sense to "common sense" explanations, plus, those "common sense explanations" are just as likely to be completely wrong.

The point is that "common sense" can be and most often is complete bullshit. And exposing students to that fact should not confuse them, but rather make them think! And question. And test.

Creationists want students to sit comfortably in their false pre-conceived ideas, but science requires them to test everything. So much of how the world actually works is very counter-intuitive.

Students need to understand that, not be locked into dungeons of ignorance as creationists want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by CRR, posted 04-20-2017 10:07 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 582
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 368 of 936 (805827)
04-20-2017 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by dwise1
04-20-2017 11:34 PM


Re: If Not, What?
dwise1: "Therefore, bacterial immunity to certain toxins is diferent. Right?"

Of course! Keep your hat on! I merely meant that there is a vague similarity between the two - ie, immunity to A develops by exposure to A; immunity to B develops by exposure to B.

I've never heard of bacteria (or any organisms) becoming immune to a toxin by exposure to it. Is this a demonstrable scientific fact, or just another baseless Darwinist assumption invented to fit their theory?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:34 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 1:02 AM Dredge has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 369 of 936 (805829)
04-21-2017 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Dr Adequate
04-20-2017 9:13 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
Your childish games make debate here a nightmare. Maybe that's your intention.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2017 9:13 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 370 of 936 (805830)
04-21-2017 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dredge
04-20-2017 10:39 PM


Re: If Not, What?
So the lucky surviving bacteria, having been exposed to the antibiotic, develop an immunity to it. This sounds similar to how a vaccine works, except instead of becoming immune to a disease (polio, for example), the bacteria become immune to a toxin.

No, the bacteria evolve to become immune. See, this is exactly why we need to say that the bacteria evolve immunity, rather than just "developing" immunity, so that people don't get misled into imagining some such process as you describe.

It's a demonstrable scientific fact that some organisms develop immunity to certain diseases, but I've never heard of an organism developing immunity to a toxin.

It's called mithridatism, and you must have heard of at least one example of it --- you must know that a long-term alcoholic can drink alcohol in quantities that would kill a non-drinker. (This is not "immunity" in the sense that the immune system is involved, it's done by the liver.)

Another example is that people can become immune to snake venom. In this case antibodies are involved.

I know of no instance of it occurring in bacteria.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 10:39 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Dredge, posted 04-23-2017 12:59 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 371 of 936 (805831)
04-21-2017 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by herebedragons
04-20-2017 8:06 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Since apparently all you want to do is find some way to prove my thrown-together model isn't usable in its present form (which can't be tested under these circumstances anyway), and you are giving me a test in a field you've had experience in for years, which would overcome any problems with YOUR model, I'm bowing out of this set-up. I would like to see how your model operates if you have the time. And if CRR stays in the game, his views too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by herebedragons, posted 04-20-2017 8:06 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2970
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 372 of 936 (805834)
04-21-2017 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Dredge
04-20-2017 11:55 PM


Re: If Not, What?
Of course! Keep your hat on! I merely meant that there is a vague similarity between the two - ie, immunity to A develops by exposure to A; immunity to B develops by exposure to B.

I've never heard of bacteria (or any organisms) becoming immune to a toxin by exposure to it. Is this a demonstrable scientific fact, or just another baseless Darwinist assumption invented to fit their theory?

Two entirely different mechnicims to my knowledge.

And you are stating a Lamarckian assumption, not Darwinian. Please do not misrepresent evolution.

Edited by dwise1, : Clean-up in aisle three.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 11:55 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:34 PM dwise1 has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 373 of 936 (805844)
04-21-2017 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by dwise1
04-20-2017 11:24 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Common sense like if you drop two cannonballs, one twice as heavy as the other, the heavier one should fall faster? That is not what actually happens.

Actually this is what happens. The heavier one has greater mass/surface area and will be less affected by air resistance. Since nobody lives in a vacuum common sense is based on actual experience. But even so it allows a prediction to be made that can be tested and falsified or not. Observing that falling cannonballs APPEAR to fall at the same speed allows us to improve our understanding and predict that in a vacuum all objects will fall at the same speed. This hypothesis can then be tested.

Common sense is just as good, and probably better, that the evolutionary hypothesis at making testable predictions that can then be scientifically examined; which is what I said earlier.

Yes, herbedragons was comparing similar fungi and I was making the point that the evolutionary hypothesis was not required to follow that line of enquiry.

Sorry if you were confused. Probably concussion from your major face plant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 11:24 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2017 5:44 AM CRR has responded
 Message 378 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 10:24 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 383 by Taq, posted 04-21-2017 3:42 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5099
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 374 of 936 (805845)
04-21-2017 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by CRR
04-21-2017 4:56 AM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
CRR writes:

Actually this is what happens.

No it's not. As you well know, two balls of the same size will fall at the same speed regardless of their different weights. This is totally counter-intuitive.

The heavier one has greater mass/surface area and will be less affected by air resistance.

The heavier one can quite easily be the smaller. But how did you come to know this? Science told you, be grateful for the methodology.

Since nobody lives in a vacuum common sense is based on actual experience.

And this is why common sense can't be relied upon.

But even so it allows a prediction to be made that can be tested and falsified or not. Observing that falling cannonballs APPEAR to fall at the same speed allows us to improve our understanding and predict that in a vacuum all objects will fall at the same speed. This hypothesis can then be tested.

Well finally you accept the point being made. This hypothesis testing is the basis of all science and is the antithesis of religious belief. Things like the TOE were built scientifically by testing these hypotheses against observations. By doing so it destroyed the 'common sense' idea that all life on earth was put here all at once as we see it now by a god.

There is no evidence to support that 'common sense' idea.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 4:56 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 6:23 AM Tangle has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 375 of 936 (805847)
04-21-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Tangle
04-21-2017 5:44 AM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
You're wrong Tangle.

Consider a soap bubble and a ball of lead, both exactly the same size. Which will fall faster? The difference in weight here is enough to produce an observable difference. The soap bubble falls quite slowly. I have seen this.

Have you ever watered the garden? The heavy drops fall quickly but the mist settles slowly. I have seen this too.

In air, size and density mean that not everything falls at the same rate; that only happens in a vacuum. Or so I'm told and I believe it to be true.

In Galileo's experiment the effects of air resistance was small for both balls and the difference in how fast they fell was not discernible with the experimental equipment used.

Evolution has many failed predictions to its credit! See here
https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
Depending of course on how you define evolution, and that is the topic of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2017 5:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2017 6:47 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 380 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 12:56 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 384 by Taq, posted 04-21-2017 3:46 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017