|
Author
|
Topic: Foundations of ID
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 179 of 213 (207679)
05-13-2005 7:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
04-28-2005 10:09 AM
|
|
Re: A few questions.
quote:
Since Christian scientists are not a part of the mainstream scientific community....
What are you talking about?? I can think of at least 5 scientists in my husband's area (subset of the Psychology department at the University of Michigan) who are devout, churchgoing Christians. In fact, one of them is on his PhD advisory comittee. There are lots of Christians, and other religious people in the sciences. They just don't try to insert their religion or their personal beliefs in the supernatural into their professional work.
quote:
Bias is something you either see or you don't. It requires a lot of empathy and a lot of introspection.
Actually, there is a very effective system for eliminating much bias in observations and analysis. This system is the combination of two systems, actually: The scientific method, combined with peer review.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Limbo, posted 04-28-2005 10:09 AM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 180 of 213 (207687)
05-13-2005 8:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
04-29-2005 9:42 PM
|
|
quote:
Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution
...except for Behe. Behe accepts the Theory of Evolution, and ancient Earth, etc.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:42 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
quote:
This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory."
No evidence? What do you think that the pattern in the fossil record you just mentioned is? Gould writes:
link to full test of essay.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record?geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)?reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species?more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years. We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Also, why do you assert that there has to be mathematics or lab experiments for a historical, inferred science to be valid? Are there lots of equations in Archaeology, for example, and if there are not, then does that mean that Archaeology is not valid science? Gould again:
The second and third arguments for evolution?the case for major changes?do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 182 of 213 (207704)
05-13-2005 9:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Limbo
05-01-2005 10:32 AM
|
|
quote:
Pulling secular humanistic religion out of science needs to be done
NO!!! That will NEVER HAPPEN! I'm going to write a letter to ALL of my fellow members of the Church of the Secular Scientist to rally the many millions of us to oppose this blasphemy! Better yet, when we all convene this year at the National Synod of the Church of the Secular Scientist held in Virginia near the National Science Foundation, our holiest of holy sites, I will alert the rest of the faithful to the threat you pose to us. We will also attend workshops such as: "Reading Published Literature in a Pure and Moral way", "How to Write a Grant Proposal in Today's Sex, Drugs, and Roc n Roll Culture and not Lose Your Way", and Statistical Analysis; Is it a Tool of Satan?". We will not have our FAITH defiled and destroyed by you evildoers!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 10:32 AM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: the point
quote:
I suppose one could pick one of several billion speciations, each or at least most more complex than its predecessor species over a massive period of time. Isn't that poofs?
Modern horses have only one toe on the end of each limb, but their predicespors had multiple toes. Modern horse legs are therefore less complex, because they have fewer toes, right?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: the point
quote:
Ahhh.....Did you know that if you guys could come together admitting that this is a historical, inferred science and not a science based on empirical experimentation,
Careful, I never said that Biology wasn't empirical. It most certainly is emperical, and we can certainly do plenty of experiments. Are there lots of equations in Archaeology, for example, and if there are not, then does that mean that Archaeology is not valid science?
quote:
much less something BEYOND a theory of science
Wha?
quote:
even to the level as to be FACTS of science
That evolution occurs is a fact. The explanitory framework which describes the facts and ties them together is the Theory of Evolution. The minutae of exactly how evolution occurs is constantly under examination, revision and discussion by scientists, but no real scientist disputes that allele frequencies of populations change over time. So, Evolution is both fact and theory.
quote:
setting Darwinism as above the other theories
Do you mean the Modern Synthesis, which combined Darwinism with genetics?
quote:
that your problems might dissipate?
Set above? What problems?
quote:
Many Darwinists (picture Eugenie Scott) simply do not tell the truth.
How so? Please be specific.
quote:
The public is on to this and wouldn't trust her any further than they could throw her on ANYTHING in science.
Why should I care what "the public" thinks about anything, considering "the public" is largely ignorant of science?
Modern horses have only one toe on the end of each limb, but their predicespors had multiple toes. Modern horse legs are therefore less complex, because they have fewer toes, right? quote:
Not necessarily. It would depend on our approach.
So, an organism can gain OR lose limbs and both outcomes could be considered more complex or less complex? How does that make any sense? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2005 07:58 AM
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: the point
I guess youmissed the first half of my reply to you, so I'll repost it here.
quote:
This greatly frustrated Eldredge and Gould who would just openly admit that there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support the gradual evolution proposed by Darwin. Instead, we find in the record long periods of stasis interupted by bursts of sudden speciation as in the Cambrian explosion. So, again, with not a shred of evidence, one mathematical formula or a single lab experiment, they invented punctuated equilibrium as their new "theory.
No evidence? What do you think that the pattern in the fossil record you just mentioned is? Gould writes:
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record?geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)?reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species?more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years. We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane. So, please support your claim that there is "no evidence" for PE, or withdraw it.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: the point
quote:
ID wants science to be science again. No religion anywhere in it. Just science, and there may be the difference in our approach.
Again? When are you refering to? When do you think "science was science", and when did science become religious? Surely, this "creeping religosity" must have damaged inquiry and the progress of scientific knowledge, so could you please point out at what point on the timeline of science did this decline in productivity and advancement take place?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 192 of 213 (208322)
05-15-2005 8:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by Limbo
05-15-2005 3:51 AM
|
|
Re: Take care Jerry
Limbo, maybe you can explain how scientific inquiry has been stifled and damaged and held back due to this encroaching religiousness of scientists. Can you show where medical advancements, for example, have ground to a halt because of secular humanism, or perhaps the space program has been adversely stymied due to influence by Agnosticism? How has scientific inquiry been slowed or damaged?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by Limbo, posted 05-15-2005 3:51 AM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 206 of 213 (209952)
05-20-2005 8:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by KKawohl
05-16-2005 11:21 AM
|
|
quote:
I agree, except man's mind encompasses spirit which is energy, which can be considered metaphysical energy.
It does, and it is? How do you know? Can you show me?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 11:21 AM | | KKawohl has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 207 by KKawohl, posted 05-20-2005 12:28 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2