Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 138 (197529)
04-07-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by roxrkool
04-07-2005 11:03 AM


Off topic post. Shape up or ship out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by roxrkool, posted 04-07-2005 11:03 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 138 (197530)
04-07-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 2:38 AM


Because they have little faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 2:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 138 (197531)
04-07-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
04-07-2005 5:12 AM


quote:
The geological evidence, for instance, that is currently appropriated to old earth theory, is much better support for a worldwide Flood (I'm a YEC, not ID)
Really, then I guess you don't agree with Commike. See he's an ID theorist and they are OE and firmly reject the idea that anyone practicing science can come to the conclusion that YE and things like the flood have better support.
I agree with his GENERAL STATEMENT about how theories are held and defended and so on. Can't you READ???
And to accuse me of not debating after I've been doing that for so long is pretty low stuff.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2005 05:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 04-07-2005 5:12 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 4:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 138 (197532)
04-07-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by commike37
04-07-2005 5:55 PM


EXACTLY! Thank you.
Too bad you're not a YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by commike37, posted 04-07-2005 5:55 PM commike37 has not replied

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


Message 35 of 138 (197533)
04-07-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
04-07-2005 5:59 PM


Because they have little faith.
How does that make any sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 04-07-2005 5:59 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 36 of 138 (197535)
04-07-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by commike37
04-07-2005 5:55 PM


The whole idea of the lock-in effect is that it gives certain theories or certain methods a higher priority just because they've been around longer.
Which makes perfect sense. That's a highly reasonable way to prioritize. We give greater priority to theories with a history of explanitory power than to theories that do not have the same level of experience and work behind them. The alternative would mean the paralysis and destruction of accomplishment in science.
Here's an example of this happening.
I would prefer if you could provide an actual example from a peer-reviewed journal, not somebody's commentary on a tertiary, non-reviewed, popular science magazine. I mean, what is that? Commentary on a tertiary source, relayed second-hand? Could you get any farther from a primary source than this?
Some things just don't seem to make sense under evolution, but people go ahead and try to explain them with evolution anyway
Well, now, which is it? Can they be explained by evolution, or do they not make sense under evolution? It can't be both ways. By definition, if it can be explained by evolution, then it makes sense under evolution.
If Newtonian mechanisc couldn't explain Mercury's orbit, then why did it take as long as decades to replace Newtonian mechanics as you said.
That's how long it took to formulate an alternative that wasn't contradicted by evidence and could explain all the cases where Newtonian mechanics worked as well as the cases where it did not. We don't replace theories until we have an alternative to replace them with, because how else would we accomplish work in science?
I know it isn't going to happen overnight, but shouldn't people have been more open-minded to alternatives to Newtonian mechanics, and wouldn't that have led us to the truth faster?
The swtich from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics was probably the fastest paradigm switch in scientific history; it happened nearly as soon as Einstein came up with the theory, and as soon as his model had some experimental verification.
The only wait was waiting for someone to develop the better model. You can't shift paradigms until you have a paradigm to switch to.
You're saying that it's either the best theory or it's not science.
Yes. The reason this is not fallacious is because there is no alternative. There is no such thing as the "either-or fallacy". You're probably thinking of the "fallacy of false dictotomy", but this is a true dicotomy, so its not fallacious.
Your scenario makes it impossible for new paradigms to get fair consideration. If alternative paradigms are going to be considered unscientific, then how is it possible for them to be considered in an open-minded fashion on a fair playing field?
All they have to do is surpass the theory they intend to replace. Once they explain all that the previous, inferior theory explains, and additional evidence that the previous theory could not explain, then they will repace that earlier theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by commike37, posted 04-07-2005 5:55 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-07-2005 6:50 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 4:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 138 (197540)
04-07-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by commike37
04-07-2005 5:55 PM


the Idea Center lies
commike,
You claim:
Likewise, if some scientists have spent lifetimes researching evolution, and if so many resources have been devoted to it, then people tend to try to interpret everything according to evolution, rather than being open-minded. Here's an example of this happening.
Then you give an example of dogmatism in molecular biology that in no way refutes evolution. Perhaps that is why you source can only quote the problem as "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." But your source is dishonest; regarding the Scientific American article it states:
This mistake was apparently caused by evolutionary assumptions--could evolutionary assumptions cause the "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology?"
Funny that, since the dogma that Scientific American says it responsible is this, quoted from that article, under the subtitle Perils of Dogma:
The central dogma, as usually stated, is quite simple: DNA makes RNA, RNA makes protein, and proteins do almost all the real work of biology.
DNA and RNA and protein were unknown at the formulation of the Theory of Evolution, so this is not a dogma associated with it.
In fact, the Scientific American article instead suggests that the Theory of Evolution was key in discovering functional "junk" DNA:
Though long ago written off as irrelevant because they yield no proteins, many of these sections have been preserved mostly intact through millions of years of evolution. That suggests they do something indispensable...
A team of scientists at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) recently compared excerpts from the genomes of humans, cows, dogs, pigs, rats and seven other species. Their computer analysis turned up 1,194 segments that appear with only minor changes in several species, a strong indication that the sequences contribute to the species' evolutionary fitness.
Do you get that? Because of the Theory of Evolution, functional "junk" DNA was discovered, not in spite of it.
Your source misrepresented the article to the point that I can only consider it lying:
This article clearly shows that junk-DNA is the product of evolutionary predictions that were wrong.
No! The article clearly states that evolutionary predictions allowed the discovery of the function of "junk" DNA. Without the Theory of Evolution, the existence of function of "junk" DNA would remain unknown, therefore "junk" DNA can only "make sense under evolution".
How do you feel about the fact that your ID source, Idea Center, lies in order to make its point? They don't even tell the truth about an easily accessible popular magazine article - Idea Center must assume that its constiuents are moronic enough that they won't follow up on any references.
Are you beginning to figure out why ID is not scientific yet?
(I give you a clue: it's not because it is "alternative.")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by commike37, posted 04-07-2005 5:55 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:45 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 2:00 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

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


Message 38 of 138 (197545)
04-07-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
04-07-2005 6:39 PM


Re: the Idea Center lies
Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-07-2005 6:39 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 39 of 138 (197546)
04-07-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:27 PM


Adminnemooseus impressions of the nature of this topic
The title of this topic and the content of message 1 is such that this topic was bound to be plagued by topic drift and in general to have bits and pieces of stuff from all over. Also, the nature of the topic would seem to be conducive to having a lot of little flame wars break out.
Personally, I would have been reluctant to promote this topic from the "Proposed New Topics" forum.
That said, both the admin and non-admin mode impressions are that Crashfrog's message 36 is pretty good.
Bottom line - This topic is doomed to be a moderation problem. All that I can ask, is that the member try to put even more care into what is in their messages.
There you have it - IMO, a rather wishy-washy moderation message in a rather wishy-washy topic. Of course, there is also the possibility that Adminnemooseus is just not that bright.
Please take any responses to this message to the "General..." topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 138 (197617)
04-08-2005 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
04-07-2005 6:27 PM


Yes. The reason this is not fallacious is because there is no alternative.
I agreed with almost everything you said, but have an issue with this response to C's comment regarding non-best theories being non-scientific.
I do believe it is a fallacy to say all theories which are not the best are not scientific. I'm sort of assuming you don't mean to actually say that. But whether you are or not, I'm going to address this as if you are.
There are many theories in all sorts of fields, some are currently used as the best working model, but in some cases none have risen to the "best" and some of the "best" are quite tentative (using very little evidence). It would be odd to call all theories within these fields that are not "best" as somehow non-scientific.
Further, in fields where there is a "best" theory, that does not make all other alternative theories non-scientific, nor their investigation non-scientific.
A good example (and this was mentioned in this thread or another) was Continental Drift. That was only accepted by science as the best theory around the middle of last century. Until that time the best theory did not include plates shifting around carrying continents all over the globe. So were those working on Continental Drift theories and championing them against nonCD scientists being unscientific?
I would find that a pretty big stretch of the term unscientific. And just to make it clear CD really was tentative and there were fights within the scientific community, kind of like the ongoing fights of causes for extinctions or models of dinosaur behavior.
It seems to me the unscientific nature of a theory is not based at all on its tentativeness, nor its not being the currently accepted paradigm. Rather it is how the theory is constructed, and the methods employed to investigate its validity.
It is within this framework that we can see how ID and Creo fall apart in comparison to things like CD. Unlike CD, which simply gave evidence, recognized its tentative nature and posited future evidence which could be obtained to prove its validity, ID and Creo specifically require nullification of evidentiary rules to get some submitted as evidence and go on to ask that we accept these theories in the face of never being able to obtain proof of validity.
That said, it is unscientific of any person to champion and tentative theory as if it is equal to the best current theory and ask that it be taught along side the reigning theory. Alternative theories within a field are not supposed to be taught alongside the reigning theory to beginner students, unless it is truly equal in evidence. Tentative theories with less evidence supporting them are only appropriate for discussion by people advanced in the field so they know how to avoid the errors beginners make.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2005 6:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 04-08-2005 8:14 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 04-08-2005 9:16 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 138 (197621)
04-08-2005 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
04-07-2005 6:01 PM


I agree with his GENERAL STATEMENT about how theories are held and defended and so on. Can't you READ???
Yes, and if you read my post you would see how I attacked that. I stated quite clearly that your agreement with his general statement of how theories are held and defended showed exactly why ID and Creo theorists are identical in either not understanding or willfully trying to undercut scientific methodology.
His description, like those you made before, were not of modern science. It is deductive reasoning with lower limits of evidentiary requirements.
Indeed for all of your talk of Kuhn, you seem to have not understood what he was saying.
And to accuse me of not debating after I've been doing that for so long is pretty low stuff.
Hitting a reply button and typing something is not debating... even if what you write is quite eloquent. Debate requires that arguments accurately address each other's positions and arguments, which itself requires understanding the opponents position and arguments.
You have been ducking actual debate by instead:
1) Repeating your own position as if it did not need to be defended
2) Ignoring arguments made against your position
3) Restating that you cannot get a fair debate (evidence to the contrary), as if that was part of the debate in every thread.
4) Refusing to address the history and nature of modern scientific methodology, and what that might mean for the nature of your position and the debate itself.
I find it very odd that you would feel offended by my saying you are not debating, when most of your posts repeat that evos avoid debate, and you have said so specifically to me on more than one occassion.
Whenever you are ready to engage yourself in an actual debate, I stand ready.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-07-2005 6:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 04-08-2005 9:15 AM Silent H has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 138 (197637)
04-08-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
04-08-2005 4:35 AM


Isnt this point about a best vs better theories really just masking the issue of evo as fact vs if there were OTHER ALTERNATIVE THEORIES that evolution could NOT THEN be said to have been a fact, except of course in the sense that a legal theory is in itself (a) fact?
So it seems to come up to Not, if there are non-evo alternatives (you name your version of creationism or ID etc) but if there are alternative THEORIES OF EVOLUTION(biological change)!
I had not seen the Nelson's reference to Lyell's equilibirum of species deaths and lifes until this past week. It is becoming SOoooo increasingly clear to me that DARWINSVIEW is an elitist construct ONLY. I compare SUNY Fredonia and SUNY Cornell to "see" this (when it is not Cornell Arts and Sciences). Lyell's pre-neodarwinist position is MORE materialistic than Darwin's for if a DEATH is equilibrated with a LIFE then this is only happening with inorganic exchanges. I see the integration of hierachial thermodynamics with macrothermodyanmics to possibly afford this other view. Now this would not have the same history of testing but it seems an alternative THEORY. It describes in these deaths the decleration of evolution.
Now I have no truck with the notion that Darwin's rejection of this Lyells' uniformitarianism in the thought that it is not life that equilibrate with death but rather that there are too many babies to be supported by the carrying capacity of the environment but this looks ONLY like elitist fratnerity acceptance (Scottish economic analogy) to me. Besides one could construct a death-life equilibrium ON TOP of Darwin's wedging survival (its not what dies but what survives (the dying are less fit)) if the equilibrium were brought back to the first law of thermodynmaics instead of viewing a potential equilbrium ONLY on Wright's calculations OR Lotka-Votlterra biomaths.
I think there clearly are OTHER CONSTRUCTABLE THEORIES OF BIOLOGICAL CHANGE, therefore the "fact" of evolution is not a unified thing as the popular notion of fact is. I learned that fact in law is in fact otherwise as it simply is required for there to exist an allegation for a fact to exist. In that sense every debate post on EVC changes the fact somewhat. That IS silly. So I must disagree with Crashfrog as well and it is my feeling that ICR would not be decrying theories of evolution based on equilibria if this opened the impass the frog is so far luckily able to avoid contracting red leg for holding onto. They are for good science not ones that are this dogmatic where alternatives can not get the hearing because of a lack of ELITIST history (read liberal if you must)( I wouldnt).
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-08-2005 07:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 4:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 10:14 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 138 (197641)
04-08-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
04-08-2005 4:46 AM


Yes, and if you read my post you would see how I attacked that. I stated quite clearly that your agreement with his general statement of how theories are held and defended showed exactly why ID and Creo theorists are identical in either not understanding or willfully trying to undercut scientific methodology.
Good, I knew I agreed with him on something important.
However, you CAN'T read as you arrogantly lectured me on the supposed errors of my perfectly reasonable answers to your idiotic hysterical worries about educational "splintering." Why should I listen to a jerk like you for another minute?
Whatever respect I MIGHT possibly have had for "science" when I entered this loony bin has long since left thanks to the irresponsible attitudes of the majority gang of thugs here.
As for the rest of your stupid self-serving post (do you guys know how to do anything else?):
Blah blah blah blah blah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 4:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminNosy, posted 04-08-2005 10:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 51 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 10:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 66 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 6:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 44 of 138 (197642)
04-08-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
04-08-2005 4:35 AM


I'm glad you said this. I've been moved to reply to Crash several times, but couldn't for lack of time.
If I understood you correctly, I agree that what makes a theory scientific is the way its study and development is approached, not whether it is currently the best fit for the evidence. You mentioned the example of continental drift, and another good example is string theory. When first proposed, I think back in the 1970's, it looked intriguing because it explained some things the standard model of particle physics failed to account for, but it failed to explain so many things covered by the standard model that it was eventually abandoned as a fruitful area of study by most scientists. But some kept toiling away at it, and these efforts were not unscientific. Over time string theory was improved so that it now explains everything the standard model does, plus it makes predictions that if verified will validate the theory and replace the long-reigning standard model.
But I think Crash may be trying to say something a little different than what it appears he's saying. I think what he really means is that it would be unscientific not if we investigated theories that explain the evidence less well, but only if we accepted such theories. Promising theories that explain the evidence less well are opportunities to be explored, not theories to be rejected, and I think Crash would agree with this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 4:35 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 04-08-2005 10:24 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 04-08-2005 10:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 138 (197643)
04-08-2005 9:25 AM


Give it up creationists
You have stumbled into a booby trap where all the boobies are trained at a certain kind of combat you can never beat. Doesn't matter how reasonable your posts are, there will ALWAYS be major killing faults only THEY can find with their infallible detection devices. If it isn't the "wrong" references it's the failure to address something only they could have dreamt up. If you make a terrific point about one thing they will ignore it and point out something utterly irrelevant and beat you to a pulp for supposedly overlooking it. You can be sure that NOTHING you say will get a MOMENT's serious consideration. Oh you might get a pat on the back for trying if you get upset enough, but attention to your actual argument, forget it.
I recommend escaping while you still have some sanity left.

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ooook!, posted 04-08-2005 10:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2005 10:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-08-2005 10:48 AM Faith has replied
 Message 68 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 6:11 PM Faith 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