Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 365 (3421)
02-04-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Cobra_snake
02-04-2002 9:37 PM


So, let's get this straight. If I author a book and it includes false information, I have no responsibility as long as I'm only including it? Fascinating. I don't think you will get very far arguing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-04-2002 9:37 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-10-2002 11:24 AM lbhandli has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 365 (3422)
02-04-2002 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by gene90
02-04-2002 8:59 PM


Gene,
University Press books are almost always peer reviewed. It isn't commonly known outside of folks trying to publish, but tenure standards revolve around books that have been under such review.
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by gene90, posted 02-04-2002 8:59 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 260 of 365 (3454)
02-05-2002 10:47 AM


Wouldn't have guessed that. Thanks Larry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 3:51 PM gene90 has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 365 (3465)
02-05-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by gene90
02-05-2002 10:47 AM


I should add, they aren't put under quite the same rigor because the purpose is different than an article, but they are peer reviewed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by gene90, posted 02-05-2002 10:47 AM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 365 (3493)
02-05-2002 10:50 PM


What do we think of my post #245 as a response to Cobra's creation theory? No one seems to like it or are ignoring it
.
------------------

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


Message 263 of 365 (3536)
02-06-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-13-2002 9:22 AM


IF??? so-called scientific creationism for any reason that we/you/me bother to post is (otherwise this post would simply be deleted), given that you asked this question I can say that insofar as creation science or scientific creationsm (and I do not know which nor is the distinction so clear in my mind as I type this today) has influenced my scientific attitude that was picked up in popular works and schooling Prior to have heard of or choose to read any of this work subsequently I think (and I will not answer the question with another one)that having "learnt" of Maxwell's pedagogic hope for future (that means me) students to have as gravity, entropy, I do. I think that makes scientific creationism (creating an interest and use for this entropy) "scientific". You may disagree that influencing a student is not making something "scientific" and in some worked out philosphy I guess that could be socially maintained but I am speaking as a biologist who NEeds a handle on "quantitive evolutionary theory" and this "science" knowledge is helpful prior to turning the same work that has made it a trick these days to speak on creation and evolution as not sitting on the fence thought ___________.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-13-2002 9:22 AM nator has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 264 of 365 (3560)
02-06-2002 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Quetzal
01-26-2002 3:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Okay cobra: You wanted a evolution explained in our own words. Please note that I reject utterly your spurious attempt to link evolution with abiogenesis and cosmogenesis. These latter have no place in evolutionary theory, and efforts to include them is a vain try at erecting a strawman. You have been told repeatedly, in many ways by many posters that Darwinian evolution deals ONLY with biology. Biology is where my theory remains.
First off, there are some very basic statements that, for evolution to be true, must be true. All provide potential pathways for falsification. All lend themselves to development of testable hypotheses. All have (scientifically) predictive value:
1. If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth.
2. As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny.
3. Organisms show variation in characteristics or traits that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits.
4. Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce.
5. Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation.
6. To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce.
Next, you need to understand (and remember) that natural selection leading to evolution is simply the differential reproduction of genotypes. There are two basic assumptions for natural selection to work:
1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.
2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Graphically:
Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo.
Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:
1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.
And that’s my description of evolution. If you are unable to approach this level of discussion on Creationism, then you truly do NOT have a theory beyond goddidit.
BTW: There are a couple of interesting corollaries to my definition. Basically, the above means that there is no requirement that evolution proceed in a linear fashion. Nor is it necessary that evolution produce either greater complexity, greater perfection or greater information (LOL) for evolution to be true. This is a creationist fallacy.
As an example, it is quite common to have an organism’s DNA contain multiple non-significant (unexpressed) or recessive alleles. Because these alleles serve no immediately useful function for an organism’s individual survival/reproductive success, natural selection simply ignores them. Meaning that if environmental conditions change there are generally individuals in a given population whose traits all of a sudden become important to their survival. This is one of the primary ways bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics: the resistance was already present in the population. All the antibiotics have done is eliminate all the members WHO DID NOT ALREADY HAVE THE TRAIT, increasing the overall frequency of alleles which are resistant within the population.
Another marvelous outgrowth of evolution by natural selection is that often different combinations of genes or even macrostructures that are useful for one thing are found to be ultimately useful for something else, as well. These traits are then co-opted by natural selection to other uses.
Evolution as I’ve described it only requires a single step at a time AND each step needn’t (in fact shouldn’t) be considered in light of any subsequent step — only in comparison to its predecessor. New genes (hence new traits) do not arise because they are needed, and no organism ever made a living as a transitional — all were sufficiently well adapted for their particular niche and lifestyle to reproduce. Otherwise they would have quickly become extinct.

i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Quetzal, posted 01-26-2002 3:25 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 8:53 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 266 by mark24, posted 02-06-2002 9:07 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 267 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 12:03 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 265 of 365 (3587)
02-06-2002 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 7:11 PM


[QUOTE][b]i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I've never heard of a deer or a gazelle devouring another deer or gazelle to cut down on the population.
I have heard of lions eating gazelles out of hunger, and gazelles reproducing until their population is limited by predation or underavailability of food, at which point population growth stops.
Animals don't "know" to eat each other, they just have a system that naturally progresses towards a stable equilibrium.
[QUOTE][b]they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Until the population was checked with competition for food or by predation.
[QUOTE][b]which is what we do.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Only after our wanton and irresponsible destruction of ecosystems wipes out the real predators.
[QUOTE][b]were the caretakers of the earth[/QUOTE]
[/b]
We sure seem to mess things up then.
[QUOTE][b]so that all existence wouldnt end.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
The most anthropocentric claim I've heard yet.
Tell me, do you wander about your yard squashing every third grasshopper you see for fear that they will form a great horde and devour the Earth's plant life? No because their populations are kept in bounds by birds and other predators. Do you uproot sod from your lawn to continually open up space for younger shoots of grass before the whole yard dies of overcrowding? No because if the grass gets too crowded some shoots will die and open up more space. Two decades or so ago we found an ecosystem based around deep sea vents that we haven't quashed yet. Should we mount an expedition to kill every other tube worm down there to open up space before the system collapses?
These suggestions are absurd. Why? Because natural ecosystems can stabilize themselves and have been doing so for hundreds of millions of years and would continue to do so even if we were not here.
By the way, try to kill mainly the diseased or injured grasshoppers.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 266 of 365 (3590)
02-06-2002 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 7:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time.

I think I know what you mean,
http://www.leohome.com/ladybugs/Workshts/worksht2.htm
If there are a lot of predators, they will diminish the prey population. As the prey population diminishes, life gets tough for the predators, & they begin to suffer starvation. As the predator numbers drop off, the prey population can boom again. As the prey population booms again, life gets easier for the predators , & so their population increases..... ad infinitum.
Basically you get a graph similar to one in the link.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 365 (3618)
02-07-2002 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 7:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time.
As mark said....
basically can be modelled (to a very superficial level) as a set of differential equations with the rate of change in numbers of predators proportional to the number of prey and the rate of chane in prey organisms inversely proportional to the number of predators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 7:11 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 365 (3627)
02-07-2002 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
01-15-2002 10:24 AM


I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 01-15-2002 10:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 9:12 AM toff has not replied
 Message 272 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 2:03 AM toff has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 270 of 365 (3635)
02-07-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by toff
02-07-2002 4:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?
The short anwer to your question is, no, they don't read Gould or Dawkins or Dennet.
The longer reason as to why this is the case is, I think, because Creationists, in general, have already decided that they are right, because they are coming at the problem from a religious viewpoint.
The Bible says X, and the Bible is the word of God, and God can't be wrong, so it doesn't matter what the evidence shows or what 150 years of research has produced.
Creation "science" is based upon revelation, rather than evidence, and this is why they find it so easy to ignore evidence. The evidence is secondary to revelation in importance within the tenets of Creation "science".
IOW, when all is said and done, it is perfectly acceptable in Creation "science" to ignore evidence and fall back on, "All evidence points to X, but that can't be true, because if X was true, it would contradict the Bible. Therefore, X isn't true, and we interpret the evidence to mean Y."
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to fit nature into Creation "science".
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 4:07 AM toff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 9:15 AM nator has not replied
 Message 273 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 2:09 AM nator has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 365 (3636)
02-07-2002 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by nator
02-07-2002 9:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
It is secondary to the evidence in importance.
I think you mean secondary to the scriptural record (to use a phrase from one of those statements of belief).......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 9:12 AM nator has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 365 (3909)
02-09-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by toff
02-07-2002 4:07 AM


"I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?"
--I don't know about the other creationists in these forums, but technically I could say the same about many (I ofcourse won't mention any names) Evolutionists that havent had the pleasure of reading some rather abundant creationist literature on subjects, mainly quantifying the many arguments against Noah's Ark Feasability and some points on the Flood Tectonic Action, thoush some are very well thought-out and well worth intelligent conversation. For myself, I try to keep up with as much literature as I can, currently I am more straying into the development of Geology and Geophysics and Plate Tectonics and the like on Earth Behavior, so I have less time to read other literature, and further reducing my ability to read more is being on this board, but ofcourse I always get a good abundance of new information and love to read it when I receive it on the boards. There is a rather lengthly book on Evolution which Gould authored, I will attempt to read it sooner or later, but untill I am satisfied at some reasonable point in my geophysics.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 4:07 AM toff has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 365 (3910)
02-09-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by nator
02-07-2002 9:12 AM


If your accusations were true, I wouldn't be able to survive in these discussions as even a well worth debate. I have already proposed the problem numerous numerous times on why Creation science has nothing to do with being based on the truth of the bible as yourself and few others continually assert. I would wish it to stop unless a creationist implies this definition incorrectly, then and only then could you say that the way they say creation science is, is not a scientific method.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 9:12 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 8:57 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024