Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 121 of 138 (198180)
04-10-2005 11:31 PM


Topic Reopened
This topic has been reopened. Please be sure your post in some way addresses the main topic of this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 138 (198743)
04-12-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by crashfrog
04-09-2005 10:46 AM


Re: the Idea Center lies
For those of you who have been wondering where I've been, I lost my Internet connection for a while, so that explains that.
Crashfrog, did anyone teach you to never use the words always or never (all right, almost never use the words always or never). Because your statement is just one huge, untrue generalization. It first defies sound reason to believe that Dembski, Meyer, and all of these other scientists have made zero progress throughout their life time just because you said so. Furthermore, some high level people are taking interest in ID.
http://arn.org/idfaq/...
Others have also become intrigued. In Spring 2000, eminent philosophers and scientistsincluding two Nobel laureatestraveled from as far away as Switzerland and France to attend a conference at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas, where the main topic was intelligent design. Although many were skeptical of intelligent design, they clearly thought it warranted serious attentionand enjoyed the give-and-take with intelligent design theorists.
Biologist and philosopher of science Paul Nelson, who participated in the conference observed, These world-class scientists came to the conference, had a great time, good interaction and, almost to a person, thought the conference was worth doing.
This also goes to discredit an idea you proposed earlier, that if a theory isn't the best theory, then it's unscientific. Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory. ID scientists also do their own research, too. If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php
Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria
The bacterial flagellum represents one of the best understood molecular machines. Comprised of 40 parts that self-assemble into a true rotary engine, the biochemistry and genetics of these systems has revealed an unanticipated complexity.
Much farther down is reads:
Natural select can preserve the motor once it has been assembled, but it cannot detect anything to preserve until the motor has been assembled and performs a function. If there is no function, there is nothing to select. Given that the flagellum requires ca. 50 genes to function, how did these arise? Contrary to popular belief, we have no detailed account for the evolution of any molecular machine. The data from Y. pestis presented here seems to indicate that loss of one constituent in the system leads to the gradual loss of others. For progression to work, each gene product must maintain some function as it is adapted to another.
Now we could go into more detail about this study in specific, but the point isn't to nitpick this study. It's to show that IDers actually do perform research. They take their results and show how they fit the ID paradigm. But technically they don't need to do any research, as long as they can get existing research to conform to the ID paradigm.
{Shortened display form of URL in first quote box, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-16-2005 03:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 10:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Loudmouth, posted 04-12-2005 4:56 PM commike37 has not replied
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:56 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 12:18 AM commike37 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 138 (198752)
04-12-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by commike37
04-12-2005 4:34 PM


Re: the Idea Center lies
quote:
Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory.
How does this make ID an accurate scientific model? It seems that scientists are taking interest in ID because some of the public actually think it is a valid science. In order to show that it is in fact a pseudoscience they must get all of the details first.
quote:
ID scientists also do their own research, too. If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum. . . .
Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria
The bacterial flagellum represents one of the best understood molecular machines. Comprised of 40 parts that self-assemble into a true rotary engine, the biochemistry and genetics of these systems has revealed an unanticipated complexity.
This is a great example of ID research, and a great example of why it is pseudoscience. They simply describe a system and then say it is complex. Woopy doo. They then commit a logical fallacy (Fallacy of Incredulity) by proclaiming "See, nothing this complex could be caused by evolution".
Let's compare this to evolution, and how research in evolution is done. Evolution makes the prediction that DNA sequences will fit into a nested hiearchy. They then find distinct sequences that are common to closely related species. They then find that these sequences, such as pseudogenes and ERV's, fit into a nested hiearchy, just as the theory predicts. These are specific claims, specific models, and falsifiable predictions. ID is left with one argument: "Wow, it is so complex God must have done it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by commike37, posted 04-12-2005 4:34 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 124 of 138 (198778)
04-12-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by commike37
04-12-2005 4:34 PM


Do ID conferences a science make?
Furthermore, some high level people are taking interest in ID.
Not only is that old news, it did not conclude with people thinking that ID was a sound scientific theory. It was important to have and of course philosophers would be interested in taking a look, but that does not make the theory any more compelling or realistic a theory.
One might note that it was not put on by the scientists and philosophers coming in to attend, but rather put on by ID theorists and happened to garner those attendees. Once you have those attendees putting together such conferences without nudges or backing from ID organizations, such citations might be more impressive.
Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory.
I tool a lot of interest in ID theory. As soon as I found out about it I was all over it, reading all the books and essays I could get my hands on. Indeed it is what brought me here... looking for actual ID theorists willing to discuss issues in that field.
Conclusion: it is still unscientific. It sure didn't have to be, but what it is certainly is.
If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum.
That's funny. At the conference you cited, can you name the number of research projects discussed?
In any case, you have already been asked to provide examples of additional research. Remember? You've been asked twice and disappeared each time. Yes sir we have threads waiting for updates from any ID theorist!
As far as the one paper you cite, and this is ignoring glaring errors I see from the quotes themselves, exactly how old is it and where was it published? I would also note it has a "philosophical implications" section that does not logically follow from anything discovered within the study itself.
AbE: new title as per request
This message has been edited by holmes, 04-13-2005 02:42 AM

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 122 by commike37, posted 04-12-2005 4:34 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by AdminNosy, posted 04-12-2005 7:01 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 131 by commike37, posted 04-14-2005 4:28 PM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 125 of 138 (198786)
04-12-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:56 PM


Topic Title
Uh, Holmes, could you take a peek at topic titles and supply a new one that is indicative of where the conversation is now?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:56 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 138 (198820)
04-12-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
04-09-2005 4:02 AM


Geology not sacrosanct...
It's that you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge some firmly established science, which puts you at a disadvantage to put forth a better model. Not comprehending deposition over time and how that is related to strata makes me glad that you don't extend this style of thinking to biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:02 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Admin, posted 04-13-2005 7:51 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

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


Message 127 of 138 (198829)
04-13-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by commike37
04-12-2005 4:34 PM


This also goes to discredit an idea you proposed earlier, that if a theory isn't the best theory, then it's unscientific.
Well, perhaps the theory isn't, but rejecting the better theory in favor of it certainly would be.
Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory.
Well, hell, I'm interested in it.
I just don't agree with it. I don't accept it, and neither does the scientific community.
If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum.
That's a great example of molecular biological research, but I don't see where they used ID. Looks to me like whatever they accomplished, they accomplished according to the mainstream, evolutionist procedures and models already present in biology.
But technically they don't need to do any research, as long as they can get existing research to conform to the ID paradigm.
Then what the heck is the point, to be frank about it? If the best ID can ever hope to do is "re-interpret" evolutionary research, then Occam's Razor cuts them away. That principle of parsimony means we prefer evolution to ID because it has less "sprinkles", if you will - less entities that cannot be identified or tested. Unless ID brings something to the table and explains something evolution can't, there's no merit to it, and preferring it to evolution isn't scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by commike37, posted 04-12-2005 4:34 PM commike37 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 04-13-2005 7:17 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 04-13-2005 9:20 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 138 (198883)
04-13-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
04-13-2005 12:18 AM


Well, hell, I'm interested in it.
Yeah, that really gave me a laugh when he tried to connect that as a reason it is scientific. People are interested in car crashes, amusement parks, and geek shows, if a bunch of professors show up that doesn't make them scientific enterprises.

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 127 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 12:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 129 of 138 (198891)
04-13-2005 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Arkansas Banana Boy
04-12-2005 11:37 PM


Re: Geology not sacrosanct...
Faith and Arkansas Banana Boy,
Please cease the bickering and stick to the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-12-2005 11:37 PM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 130 of 138 (198913)
04-13-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
04-13-2005 12:18 AM


crashfrog writes:
This also goes to discredit an idea you proposed earlier, that if a theory isn't the best theory, then it's unscientific.
Well, perhaps the theory isn't, but rejecting the better theory in favor of it certainly would be.
Which is a better theory can be a matter of opinion, it depends upon the specific circumstances. For example, say there are two theories attempting to explain five related phenomena, and which one explains each phenomena best differs like this:
Theory     Factor A   Factor B   Factor C   Factor D  Factor E
==============================================================
Theory #1     X          X                     X
Theory #2                X          X          X         X
Even though Theory #2 explains more phenomena, it could still easily be debatable which theory is best, for any number of reasons. For instance, explaining some types of phenomena might be much more significant than others. But what about this case:
Theory     Factor A   Factor B   Factor C   Factor D  Factor E
==============================================================
Theory #1
Theory #2     X          X          X          X         X
In this case it would be perverse to accept Theory #1 and reject Theory #2. This is analogous to the situation between Creationism and science. Evolution explains the fossil progression in the geologic column, flood theory does not. Geology explains how the geologic layers formed, flood theory does not. Geology explains why the proportion of daughter products of radiometric elements increases with depth, flood theory does not. Evolution explains the diversity of species, Creationism does not. Evolution is consistent with the long time frames of geology and cosmology, Creationism is not.
Any reasonable attempts at validation of scientific theory must include aggressively pursuing explanations of the evidence. Failing to explain portions of the evidence is an extremely significant fault. For example, despite string theory's stunning achievement of unifying gravity with the other three forces, its inability to produce sensible results for much particle behavior caused it to be rejected by the mainstream scientific community for the first 15 years of its life. It was rejected because failure to be consistent with the evidence is an extremely serious deficiency of the highest magnitude.
The premise of this thread, that evolution lacks empirical support, is simply ludicrous and doesn't merit discussion. But the discussion that has developed concerning how one legitimately identifies viable theory is an important one. Every individual has personal criteria, but acceptance of theory is an informal consensus process of many scientists. No human endeavor has unanimity, and Creationists often make much of legitimate scientists like Michael Behe and Halton Arp who buck the mainstream. That their ideas are not accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean they're wrong, but an objective assessment of the span of phenomena explained by their preferred theories (ID for Behe, questioning the expanding universe for Arp) reveals a large number of holes. Unlike the theories of fringe scientists like Behe and Arp, widely accepted theories explain more of the data than any other theory.
But that doesn't make Behe and Arp's theories unscientific (and in fact Behe has done no professional work in ID since he has never advocated ID in any of his technical papers, all of which are consistent with traditional theories within biology). In Arp's case, the small number of anomolies he's identified are dwarfed under mountains and mountains of evidence supporting mainstream views. The immense disparity in supporting evidence is why Arp's views are in the minority. But again, that doesn't make his views unscientific. Arp is in the middle of a legitimate scientific debate, albeit one he is losing badly.
Where does one cross the line from being scientific to no longer being scientific? That's a tough one. I think I could write quite a bit and still not give anyone, including myself, a clear idea of how to tell. Probably it's best to not even try to answer this question, but instead just to assess the validity of any proposal from a scientific perspective. Instead of dividing theories into the scientific and the unscientific, we coudl probably more profitably divide them into categories ranging from "massively supported by evidence" down to "little evidential support" and continuing on down to "contradicted by the evidence."
Evolution fits in the "massively supported by evidence" category, while Creationism fits in the "contradicted by the evidence" category. This is why Creationism has had to abandon scientific work and instead lobby school boards for representation in science class.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2005 12:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 138 (199385)
04-14-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Silent H
04-12-2005 5:56 PM


Re: Do ID conferences a science make?
One might note that it was not put on by the scientists and philosophers coming in to attend, but rather put on by ID theorists and happened to garner those attendees. Once you have those attendees putting together such conferences without nudges or backing from ID organizations, such citations might be more impressive.
This is a blatant use of the ad hominem logical fallacy. You don't mention a single think about their actual research or accomplishments, you just say, "They're not credible because they're associated with ID." How can you possibly give ID a fair shot if you're going to use this kind of reasoning?
In any case, you have already been asked to provide examples of additional research. Remember? You've been asked twice and disappeared each time.
As far as the one paper you cite...
There's a glaring contradiction with these two statemnts.
And by the way, I would like to remind you that I have a life outside of this forum. So if I have to take some time for other aspects of my life (or if I lose my Internet connection), I don't want to be characterized as a hit and run poster.
I would also note it has a "philosophical implications" section that does not logically follow from anything discovered within the study itself.
How am I suppose to refute this logical flaw if I don't even see the logic as to why it's flawed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 5:56 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 4:30 PM commike37 has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 132 of 138 (199386)
04-14-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by commike37
04-14-2005 4:28 PM


Re: Do ID conferences a science make?
You don't mention a single think about their actual research or accomplishments, you just say, "They're not credible because they're associated with ID." How can you possibly give ID a fair shot if you're going to use this kind of reasoning?
Hi commike,
I didn't attend the conference. If you attended it, please could you give a quick overview of their substantive research accomplishments? If you didn't attend, is there a website or a book or something where their research results were presented?
Thanks,
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by commike37, posted 04-14-2005 4:28 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by commike37, posted 04-15-2005 6:59 PM mick has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 138 (199648)
04-15-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by mick
04-14-2005 4:30 PM


Weak Credibility Challenge
Do I call into question the credibility of a scientific conference on evolution just because it was by evolution scientists? No. The only warrant I've seen from you and Holmes on the credibility and success of this conference is that it was by ID scientists. However, the people at this conference have more credibility than you because they are actual scientists. For example, one of the people who was on the International Scientific Advisory Committee for this conference, Adrian Bejan, has a Ph.D. from MIT, is listed by ISI highycited.com as Highly Cited, and has a quite impressive set of credentials (source: http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?&link1=Browse&lin...). Unless you can bring in another scientist or other credible source showing why this is an uncredible conference, then the only warrant you have against its credibility is that it is related to ID. And I'm not going to anwer that kind of credibility challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 4:30 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2005 12:32 AM commike37 has not replied
 Message 135 by sfs, posted 04-16-2005 7:11 AM commike37 has replied
 Message 138 by mick, posted 04-25-2005 12:40 PM commike37 has not replied

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


Message 134 of 138 (199699)
04-16-2005 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by commike37
04-15-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Weak Credibility Challenge
I don't see how that answers his question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by commike37, posted 04-15-2005 6:59 PM commike37 has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 135 of 138 (199720)
04-16-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by commike37
04-15-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Weak Credibility Challenge
I really don't care about who put on this conference or why. I want to find out what scientific research the intelligent design movement is producing. If such research was presented at the conference, than good for it, but it's still the research that's interesting, not the conference. And if research wasn't presented there, than the conference is of no interest at all.
quote:
Do I call into question the credibility of a scientific conference on evolution just because it was by evolution scientists? No. The only warrant I've seen from you and Holmes on the credibility and success of this conference is that it was by ID scientists. However, the people at this conference have more credibility than you because they are actual scientists. For example, one of the people who was on the International Scientific Advisory Committee for this conference, Adrian Bejan, has a Ph.D. from MIT, is listed by ISI highycited.com as Highly Cited, and has a quite impressive set of credentials [...]Unless you can bring in another scientist or other credible source showing why this is an uncredible conference, then the only warrant you have against its credibility is that it is related to ID.
I don't think you want to take that approach: it's too easy to find scientists who object to ID in general and who objected to that conference in particular. Eight Baylor biologists are on record as having opposed the conference and considered it pseudoscience, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by commike37, posted 04-15-2005 6:59 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by commike37, posted 04-16-2005 1:21 PM 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