Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 271 of 304 (440233)
12-12-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Integrity
Hi Lucy,
I have to take objection to this I'm afraid;
LucyTheApe writes:
Where's the integrity in filing down a pigs tooth to make it look half human to support a floundering theory.
Is that what you imagine the average scientist does with their day? You say that as though deliberately creating fakes is standard practise.
I assume that you are referencing the "Piltdown Man" hoax (if not, please put me right).
There is no proof that Piltdown man was created by a scientist. It was almost certainly the work of "discoverer" Charles Dawson, who was an amateur, not a professional scientist.
Also, your contention that the hoax was intended "to support a floundering theory" is baseless. A more likely motive is that Dawson sought personal aggrandisement. He also traded in fakes, swapping them for genuine items. Plenty of motive there.
The way creationists bring up Piltdown is rather sad. The actions of one dishonest man no more disgrace the whole of science than the scandals around Ted Haggard disgrace the whole of religion. Constantly reviving the spectre of Piltdown is pathetic, and does nothing to advance your argument.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are honest. If this is not n the case, please feel free to show me the mountains of faked evidences that surely must abound.
Questioning the integrity of hundreds of thousands of professional men and women around the globe is insulting and intellectually dishonest. It certainly does not reflect well upon your own integrity. Do yourself a favour and withdraw your comment, which is essentially a libel upon every scientist alive.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 9:14 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 277 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 10:03 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 272 of 304 (440237)
12-12-2007 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Integrity
LucyTheApe writes:
Where's the integrity...?
Yes, been wondering that myself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 273 of 304 (440240)
12-12-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Granny Magda
12-12-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Integrity
I assume that you are referencing the "Piltdown Man" hoax (if not, please put me right).
More likely an oblique reference to the "Nebraska Man"
A discredited claim, rather than an outright hoax, and I don't recall anything about modifying the evidence in that case.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Granny Magda, posted 12-12-2007 8:04 AM Granny Magda has not replied

reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 274 of 304 (440242)
12-12-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Integrity
Where's the integrity in filing down a pigs tooth to make it look
half human to support a floundering theory.
As a relative newcomer to the boards I'm always a bit curious about the claims to a 'floundering theory'. Can you show where it is floundering or did you just make that up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 9:54 AM reiverix has not replied
 Message 276 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 10:02 AM reiverix has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 304 (440243)
12-12-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by reiverix
12-12-2007 9:32 AM


Floundering Industriously
It's obvious, the theory explains Achiropsettidae, Bothidae, Paralichthyidae, and Pleuronectidae, a moving experience.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by reiverix, posted 12-12-2007 9:32 AM reiverix has not replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 304 (440244)
12-12-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by reiverix
12-12-2007 9:32 AM


Re: Integrity
As a relative newcomer to the boards I'm always a bit curious about the claims to a 'floundering theory'. Can you show where it is floundering or did you just make that up?
When I talk about the "Floundering Theory", I'm talking about the study of the phenomenon that surrounds a certain species of fish who not only have two eyes on one side of their head but also have a foot in their mouth.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by reiverix, posted 12-12-2007 9:32 AM reiverix has not replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 304 (440245)
12-12-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Granny Magda
12-12-2007 8:04 AM


Re: Integrity
Your right again Granny. I've withdrawn that stupid remark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Granny Magda, posted 12-12-2007 8:04 AM Granny Magda has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 278 of 304 (440247)
12-12-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 6:02 AM


Re: Integrity
Withdrawn inappropriate message (about pigs teeth and flounders)
The question LucyTheApe, is how do you determine reality, how do you test concepts for truth?
Biologists accept the Theory of Evolution for a number of reasons, including its explanatory power, and lack of real competition, but mostly because it is tested against reality by the scientific method, and that this testing shows the theory to be a very robust sound theory. They have better reason than the general population to either accept or reject the theory because they work with it and the evidence every day, yet the proportion of evolutionary biologists that accept the theory of evolution is much higher than the general population.
Do you research creationist claims to see what their validity is, how they actually measure up against the evidence?
Or do you accept them without question because they match your template for reality, and anything that appears to be "true" to that template is good enough for you?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 6:02 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 11:16 AM RAZD has not replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 304 (440257)
12-12-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by RAZD
12-12-2007 10:14 AM


Re: Integrity
In the US there are at least 2000 Christian Religions, and growing weekly. They all claim to have a handle on the truth. At least 1999 of them must be wrong (on the condition that no two have the same tenet).
That's their problem. That's faith. Doesn't need reasoning.
My problem on the other hand is that evolutionary science is inductive by it's nature. It uses inductive reasoning (you guys call scientific method). Therefore the conclusions however well presented by their arguments are non the less probabilistic, but that's fine on it's own. The error factor compounds when conclusions are built on conclusions.
For this reason any science that uses induction as a basis for reasoning must be thorough, vigorous in leaving no stone unturned and spotless in their analysis. Let me use a recent example, the hobbit. A find was made that was very interesting. But without proper scrutiny the news flashed all around the globe that a new human ancestor was found. It's news for a couple of weeks or a month and ONLY then does the peer review kick in. Normally in science a paper is presented and reviewed before it becomes news. Why?
I'm not worried about me, because these things interest me and I will keep an eye on developments. What I'm worried about is that the kids are being brainwashed by supposed truths before the facts are laid on the table. If I can use an analogy. Take for example when a politician or public figure is accused of some scandalous act. The appropriate minister comes out and declares that It's inappropriate to comment and people shouldn't speculate because there is an investigation underway and any discussion could hinder the legal process. Then the body undertaking the investigation has 18 months or so to complete their investigation. Of course during that time people have forgotten. Do you see where I'm coming from so far?
Edited by LucyTheApe, : why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2007 10:14 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 12-12-2007 12:55 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 282 by nator, posted 12-12-2007 1:29 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 284 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 2:26 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 280 of 304 (440275)
12-12-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 11:16 AM


Re: Integrity
Science uses deduction to draw conclusions and induction to make predictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 11:16 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 1:03 PM Percy has replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 304 (440282)
12-12-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
12-12-2007 12:55 PM


Re: Integrity
exactly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 12-12-2007 12:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 12-12-2007 1:44 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

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


Message 282 of 304 (440296)
12-12-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 11:16 AM


Re: Integrity
quote:
What I'm worried about is that the kids are being brainwashed by supposed truths before the facts are laid on the table.
So what facts about Evolution do you believe are missing?
Do you similarly mistrust the teaching of the various competing theories of Gravity, something we understand far less thoroughly compared to Biological Evolution?
Just becasue we don't have perfect knowledge doesn't mean we don't know anything.
The ToE has been tested and refined for around 150 years. The most recent line of evidence that contributes to its robustness is the discovery of DNA and the role genes play in heredity. We learned that the morphological tree of life, built using Evolutionary concepts before Genetics existed as a field, matches the subsequently constructed genetic tree of life very closely.
Given this evidence, what misgivings do you think warrant mistrust of the ToE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 11:16 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 283 of 304 (440302)
12-12-2007 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Integrity
LucyTheApe in Message 279 writes:
My problem on the other hand is that evolutionary science is inductive by it's nature. It uses inductive reasoning (you guys call scientific method). Therefore the conclusions however well presented by their arguments are non the less probabilistic, but that's fine on it's own. The error factor compounds when conclusions are built on conclusions.
Percy in Message 280 writes:
Science uses deduction to draw conclusions and induction to make predictions.
LucyTheApe in Message 281 writes:
exactly
Your last statement contradicts your first one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 1:03 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 284 of 304 (440310)
12-12-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by LucyTheApe
12-12-2007 11:16 AM


Re: Integrity
LucyTheApe writes:
In the US there are at least 2000 Christian Religions, and growing weekly. They all claim to have a handle on the truth. At least 1999 of them must be wrong (on the condition that no two have the same tenet).
Very logical.
What I'm worried about is that the kids are being brainwashed by supposed truths before the facts are laid on the table.
But you seem to be criticizing biology, not the 2,000 brainwashing sects.
Scientists are expected to present evidence for what they teach to children as (always tentative) "truths".
The overwhelming majority of the world's children are being indoctrinated with one religion or another from a very early age (before they know what the word "biology" means) and history shows that only a minority of each generation will manage to de-program themselves.
That's brainwashing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-12-2007 11:16 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2007 2:57 PM bluegenes has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 285 of 304 (440314)
12-12-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by bluegenes
12-12-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Integrity
Scientists are expected to present evidence for what they teach to children as (always tentative) "truths".
Actually, for the large part it's not the scientists who produce the materials used to teach children, at least children in the primary and secondary school systems (ie, K to 12th grade). Most of those textbooks are written by professional textbook writers, not by scientists. As a result, not only is the content determined by the publisher -- who is strongly influenced by pressure groups, such as creationists, and by considerations of what will sell in the larger states where the school boards are themselves pressured by special interest groups such as creationists. Add on to that the writers' own misconceptions about science and evolution.
For example, in the mid-1980's William J. Bennetta (later of "The Textbook League") was involved with the California State Board of Education's purchase of a new high school biology textbook. He enlisted the help of a group of scientists to review the candidate textbooks. They found all of those books to be filled with misconceptions, factual errors, and just plain wrong statements. Even though none of those books were acceptable, they did choose the least unacceptable of them and presented a list of corrections that needed to be made before it could be minimally acceptable. The publisher made a few of the corrections and then the Board accepted it without informing Bennetta and the scientists, essentially acting behind their backs. As a result, students were being taught wrong "information".
What Lucy was complaining about was that the press reports their version of a scientist's new findings before any peer review has taken place. Actually, what I've seen is that the press doesn't normally learn of these discoveries until the scientist has published it, meaning that the peer review process has indeed taken place.
However, the real concern should be the misinformation contained in the textbooks that the students are learning from and that the teacher (who is not always trained in science; eg, biology teacher John Peloza was schooled in PhysEd and my son's biology teacher in middle school was the home ec teacher) is depending on. Textbooks that are written without input from the scientists.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 2:26 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by bluegenes, posted 12-12-2007 4:30 PM dwise1 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