The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Loudmouth,
You have an interesting list of challenges, but I currently know very little about genetics (although I am learning), and can't answer them right now. Someday... Creationism cannot make sure predictions about things like mitochondrial DNA, because God could have made them however he wanted. (note: I am not using the "godunnit" argument to try to support creationism, it's just that we can't predict how God would have done something.) All I can say about mitochondrial DNA is that it will resemble bacterial DNA to the extent that mitochondria resemble bacteria (I know that that is extremely weak).The only prediction I can make with confidence is that there is much, much less "junk DNA" than is currently supposed. Actually, that is what my research will hopefully be about.

quote:

---

You have an interesting list of challenges, but I currently know very little about genetics (although I am learning), and can't answer them right now. Someday...

---

Then why do you proclaim that genetics offers serious problems for the theory of evolution? Are you simply parroting creationist websites or is this an opinion from experience?

quote:

---

Creationism cannot make sure predictions about things like mitochondrial DNA, because God could have made them however he wanted.

---

And what evidence led you to the conclusion that God was not bound by rules when he created DNA sequences? What evidence led you to the conclusion that God even had anything to do with constructing DNA sequences? Is your evidence a subjective translation of an ancient text or is it objective evidence from the genomes themselves and evidence in the fossil record? Are you starting from the conclusion and shoehorning in the evidence? If so, what stops me from concluding that aliens fooled with our DNA in ways that can not be predicted?Then why are geneticists able to make bold predictions using the theory of evolution? And why are those predictions bourne out in experiment after experiment? If God could have made it anyway he wanted to, why does mit DNA support evolution and common ancestory? If evolution were not true, and God made it however he wanted it to, why are these predictions excluding God right all of the time?

quote:

---

All I can say about mitochondrial DNA is that it will resemble bacterial DNA to the extent that mitochondria resemble bacteria (I know that that is extremely weak).

---

Evolution can go one more step. Evolution claims that sequence similarities in mitochondrial genes should reflect common ancestory and evolution, and it does. If creationism were correct, you would think that creationists would be better at making specific claims and having those claims be supported by the genetic evidence. Why should mitochondrial DNA follow common ancestory if creationism is true? Why should pattens of viral insertions mimic the fossil record if creationism is true?

quote:

---

The only prediction I can make with confidence is that there is much, much less "junk DNA" than is currently supposed. Actually, that is what my research will hopefully be about.

---

I will agree with you, but this in no way refutes evolution. Remember, junk DNA is defined as vestigial, not non-functional. For example, if you used a computer keyboard to pound in a nail, does that make the keyboard a hammer? Or does it make the keyboard a complex tool being used in a manner that it wasn't designed for? The keyboard, in this example, is a vestigial tool being used as a hammer. It serves a function, but it's original function is still quite obvious. The same can be said for junk DNA. It may serve some purpose, but role is obviously not what that DNA sequence originally filled in an ancestor species. Functional "junk" DNA is expected, and more such sequences will be found. However, the mutations in those sequences of junk DNA still support common ancestory which is something separate from the function of that sequence.

Interesting - why do you have such confidence in this hypothesis?
Is there specific evidence you feel has been overlooked?Also, as a word of caution, keep in mind that the use of the term "junk DNA" means different things depending on who is saying it.In the popular science press, "junk DNA" is usually used as a catch-all for all DNA not known to have a direct role with genes - unfortunately the word "junk" tends to imply "without function". However, geneticists don't think of it in such simple terms, and many major projects are ongoing to associate functional importance with what the lay press calls "junk DNA". Multiple groups of biostatisticians have created algorithms that use comparative genomics to help identify potential regions of biological importance in the non-genic sequence.In fact, there was just a major Nature paper a month or so ago examining the biological role of viral elements in the human genome that many had previously thought of as inconsequential.(I don't want you to have the misconception that science is not examining the nature and function of "junk DNA").

I didn't check back to see if he did make that mistake. But you make a good point in any case. As I see it you are both correct. However, your viewpoint can get a little tangled in the philosophy. What is "reality" can get complex if you allow the wierd (IMHO) philosophical arguments free reign. A theory is, among other thing, an organization of what is known as simple facts. He is only using shorthand. The ToE is a fully scientific theory and stands in very well for any of them.

Of course this is right. "Evolution" is just a subset of the sciences.Can you articulate what you think you could find in the "junk" DNA that would make a truely deep change to the ToE? It seems to me that the complexity of the way a genome is expressed has already been exposed but there will be lots more uncovered. The complexity doesn't seem to me to have made a real fundamental difference to the ToE. It just adds still more to the myriad of details that we need to understand.What "fatal flaws" might you find? Don't worry about having to back them up as yet. It is unfettered (well sort of unfettered) speculation that starts many an avenue of research. It would be interesting to see some thoughts. It is hard for me, with my perhaps limited imagination, to figure out what might turn up with what we already know.Actually, this might be a good place to spin off a new thread with that as a topic. Would you do so? I know an admin that will quickly approve it.

Ned,This is not the first time I've gotten over focused on creationism and religion and written as though they were identical. I don't hold that to be the case. So not all religionist hold a belief in creationist YEC etc. I did ask JT if he would accept saying "all creationist are religious". There may be an exception though I've not seem them on this list. It would be interesting to see a thread for non religious creationism.I did write:

quote:

---

The way I see this is that scientists are doing science to answer a great many question in many fields. To do this they use observation, experimentation, math, modeling etc. Evolution is being used in such diverse fields as astronomy, geology, and biology because it is serving the function that a scientific theory is supposed to. It helps organize the data, it provides explanatory models that then generate further experiments, explorations etc.

---

I've got to write a better expression of a number of ideas that I think don't get enough attention from creationist. I get the impression that many think ToE is something developed to refute their religion. I didn't want to go near the question of "what is reality". I wanted to point out that ToE has generated a lot of good science, it is a theory that "earns it's keep" and that is am important function of a good scientific theory that it generate testable hypothesis and that it provides a framework to advance knowledge.
This might be something someone wants to argue in another thread.
And "what is reality" would be another thread.I just wanted to point out that ToE is at the present a functioning theory whose value can be shown not by "reality" but by how it facilitates science and medicine among other things. I don't see creationist science generating much good science. If we abandoned evolution theories in biology, geology, astronomy etc. I doubt creationism could provide a paradign that would offer perspectives that lead to a lot of good expermental designs.lfen

quote:

---

What I don't understand is why you are not like that with the YEC issue, even though it is an issue far less settled than the star-distance issue.

---

I am like that with the YEC issue.Can you show me an example of where I was not?

quote:

---

I had to laugh when I noticed that your definition defines creationism as psuedoscience, automatically winning the debate.

---

The reason my definition describes Creation science as a pseudoscience is because it is one. IOW, it fits the definition of a pseudoscience, so it makes sense to describe it as such.

quote:

---

I meant creationism as anti-evolutionism; I am now unsure if I was using the word correctly. If your definition of "creation science" is correct, and it quite possibly is, then I can't defend (from charges of unscientificness[which isn' a word{apologies for the nested parenthesies}]) "creation science."

​

I have been agreeing with you all along (I think), I just didn't know it.

---

Hmm, it wouldn't be the first time that something like this has happened.

I almost mentioned this earlier, but didn't want to because it is fairly petty, but I think it is the best way to make my point now. What about when the scientific community believed the world was flat? I couldn't agree more. I am sensing an implication that I disbelieve evolution because of non-scientific (emotional?) reasons. That is why I disbelieve evolution, as will (hopefully) become apparent in later debates. I do have bias - I don't deny it. How I understand the falsification part of scientific method is as follows: you try as hard as possible to disprove your hypothesis, and if it stands, it must be pretty strong to have withstood all those attacks. Trying to disprove a hypothesis is inherently scientific.Since my bias has been one of the major issues so far, I will elaborate on it some (not the least so I understand it better). M-w defines bias as: "an inclination of temperament or outlook" and lists the synonyms "bent" and "tendency." My beliefs give me the tendency to view things in a way which supports my beliefs, i.e. if there is a fact I haven't known before, I will tend to interpret it in favor of creation than in favor of evolution.The bias is a problem only when the tendency to favorably (to my beliefs) interpret facts over-rules rationality. However, if one maintains rationality (like I strive to), bias only comes into play when two ideas equally (or nearly equally) explain something and bias is the only way to choose what to believe. I am afraid I am unable to support that claim, and therefore I apologize for making it. The only hypothesis I can distinctly remember was in discover magazine, and had to do with abiogenesis (yes, I know; creationist strawman, that's not evolution, etc.) I know I have read purely speculative articles, I just don't have any.

I disagree with you on that, but that is for (many) other threads... Agreed. Disagreed.Imagine a hypothetical world where creation happened, and evolution didn't. In that case, there could be no scientific explanation for the existence of life. The triumph of truth would lead to the abandonment of any scientific theory of life. There would be no guy with a more accurate theory, because a theory (in the scientific sense) couldn't explain it.If that situation (creation happened) is possible, then it is also possible to be a scientific anti-evolutionist without propounding another scientific theory.

To the best of my knowledge you are correct about that. However, all religious humanists are evolutionists. Does that affect the TOE at all?

Maybe what? I am not sure what you are reffering to. My opinion is that there is not a naturalistic explanation for life, and that it must thus be supernatural. I have examined the different supernatural ideas, and come to the conclusion that creation is most likely.

quote:

---

I almost mentioned this earlier, but didn't want to because it is fairly petty, but I think it is the best way to make my point now. What about when the scientific community believed the world was flat?

---

The scientific method as it stands now has only been around for approx. 200 years. The earth was considered round well before this time. The "father" of current scientific methodology is Karl Popper who stated that you can not truly prove a postive, but you can truly prove a positive. Therefore, falsification became a large part of the current paradigm in science.We also hesitantly mention that those who ignored scientific findings and instead relied upon the Bible thought that the sun orbited the earth. Science has also made mistakes, and science freely admits it. In fact, those that falsify theories, such as Einstein falsifying Newtonian Physics, are held in high esteem. This compared to literalist who threatened to burn Galileo for supporting Copernican cosmology.

quote:

---

I couldn't agree more. I am sensing an implication that I disbelieve evolution because of non-scientific (emotional?) reasons. That is why I disbelieve evolution, as will (hopefully) become apparent in later debates.

---

I didn't quite understand this. Are you saying that you disbelieve evolution for emotional or scientific reasons?

quote:

---

I do have bias - I don't deny it.

---

So is science. Science is biased towards theories that are based on objective evidence, theories that are supported by the evidence, and theories that are not falsified by the evidence. This is why flood geology was dropped 50 years before Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Not because evolution needed a long time frame, but because the evidence for a young earth and flood was not there, and in fact it was falsified by the evidence they did find. Those that falsified a young earth and a world wide flood were actually creationists. At the end of the day they could no longer support their theories with objective evidence.I don't mean to be harsh. Instead, I am simply offering these points as part of a discussion. I have a feeling you may be our next Hangdawg. I will say that you are a very pleasant poster and I look forward to further debate (hopefully on a more specific topic within genetics).

You mean a negative here? That is you can prove something untrue but not "true".This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 07:59 PM

You misunderstood me - I was not meaning to assert that statement, I was talking about a hunch/opinion I have which has determined my choice of research. I rarely read creationist websites, and I do all research exclusively in evolution-supporting science books and evolutionist websites. The only times I go to creationist websites are when I am completely stumped by an evolutionist argument and need to know where to start. Once I have an idea of what to pursue, I go back to evolutionist sources. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that naturalistic processes couldn't have produced life, and enough evidence to convince me that creation is the most likely supernatural explanation. (note: I am not asserting these statements for debate right now. This is merely an explanation of what I believe) Creationism is not a scientific theory; it cannot make predictions. I have no clue, because just started studying biology and know little about it. If you would have asked me a week ago what a mitochondrion was, I couldn't have answered. It is partially because of questions like yours that I want to get a phd in genetics. My hunch is that "junk DNA" is not merely functional vestigial code, but vital and fundamental code which is irreducibly complex (I know that term has been subject to debate, but I'm just explaining some guesses and opinions right now)

If an intelligent creator created life, I doubt he would have had a huge amount of useless code. But anyway, it is an untested hypothesis, and currently not more than a hunch/prediction.I don't think any evidence has been overlooked. We just know so little about genetics (compared to what there is to know) that the "junk DNA" issue hasn't been researched yet. That is part of what is going to be so cool about working in genetics - there is a plethora of entirely unknown mechanisms to discover and learn about. Thanks, I did think that and I appreciate the correction.