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: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 541 of 752 (599206)
01-05-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by shadow71
01-04-2011 7:04 PM


Hi, Shadow.
shadow71 writes:
I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science.
Well, it's not really the board: it's the topic. There are forums on this board where we talk about pure philosophy with nobody's feet even approximating contact with the ground.
But, when we talk about the origin or evolution of life, most of us are of the opinion that having our feet on the ground is important. And, it's difficult for science-minded folks to transition from our normal mode of doggedly searching for a way to solve a tantalizingly unsolvable problem to a mode of giving up the search and filling in the gaps with philosophy. That's the easy way out.
-----
After this far into the conversation, it may be of interest to you to know that Jar and I are both practicing Christians. I can't vouch for Jar, but I am very open to the idea of intelligent design, but I tend to be very hard on it because of its history of association with shoddy science and unscrupulous political tactics.
I am perfectly willing to accept that the origin of eukaryotes may very well require the work of an intelligent designer, but, in the absence of any substantive evidence for this designer's existence, and given how primitive our collective understanding of how the chemistry of life functions, it's rather premature to fall back on a supernatural explanation at this time.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:04 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 542 of 752 (599207)
01-05-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by shadow71
01-04-2011 7:04 PM


Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural?
How do you determine if there is no natural mechanism? We would have to have complete knowledge of nature to determine this, wouldn't we? Last I checked, we do not have this level of knowledge yet.
I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.
Our resistance is to bad philosophy, such as the God-of-the-Gaps philosophy that you are pushing. You seem to think that the best place to find God is in our ignorance. That doesn't seem very inspiring to me.
As to "other ways to solve a problem", when has a supernatural explanation ever turned out to be right? It would seem to me that science has found non-supernatural explanations for thousands of things that used to be credited to the supernatural. Why shouldn't we expect this trend to continue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:04 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 543 of 752 (599208)
01-05-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by shadow71
01-04-2011 7:29 PM


The problem is you belileve science is the answer to everything.
We know that science has found millions of answers that once alluded us (or were once credited to supernatural magic). It is science's track record that convinces us that it is worth using. Compare that to the abject failure of the thousands of years of supernaturalism in explaining nature prior to the advent of the modern scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by shadow71, posted 01-04-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 544 of 752 (599212)
01-05-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICdesign
01-01-2011 7:59 PM


Re: The Mutation Problem
Hi, ICdesign.
This is in response to Message 249.
ICdesign writes:
Bluejay writes:
This idiot assumes that all individuals with harmful mutations die without contributing to the gene pool.
Then, he goes on to estimate that we still inherited 4 million harmful mutations from individuals who, according to his assumptions, shouldn't have contributed to our gene pool.
Where did he say all individuals with harmful mutations die? He would not have turned around and said we inherited 4 million harmful mutations if he already disqualified that possibility.
  1. Everybody dies eventually.
  2. The important part of my statement was "dies without contributing to the gene pool," as in, they can't reproduce.
  3. He did turn around and say exactly that. Look:
    quote:
    Later we will argue that most harmful single-gene mutations will at least come to the birth... In addition to not being able to reproduce, these individuals will make it more difficult for the remaining population to survive.
    5th paragraph under "Population Genetics Background"
    quote:
    It is reasonable to assume that individuals with such defects not only cannot survive themselves, but also result in other individuals not being able to reproduce.
    6th paragraph under "Population Genetics Background"
Despite your misgivings, I did manage to get through enough schooling to learn how to read.
Furthermore, the idiot goes on to incorporate this assumption into the math. Here:
quote:
Then it follows that the chance of a gamete being free from a new, harmful mutation is 1/(2.718), or about 37 percent. This means that at equilibrium, only 1/(2.718) of the zygotes can become reproducing adults.
7th paragraph under "Population Genetics Background"
He made the categories "people without harmful mutations" and "people that can reproduce" into synonyms.
His math is based on (at least) two contradictory assumptions:
  1. People with harmful mutations will not reproduce.
  2. The human population has inherited 4 million harmful mutations from our ancestors anyway.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICdesign, posted 01-01-2011 7:59 PM ICdesign has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 545 of 752 (599372)
01-06-2011 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Taq
01-05-2011 3:39 PM


Well if there is no natural mechanism and something exists, can one not consider a supernatural?
How do you determine if there is no natural mechanism? We would have to have complete knowledge of nature to determine this, wouldn't we? Last I checked, we do not have this level of knowledge yet.
I see on this board a resistance to think about philsophy or any other discplines other than natural science. There are other ways to solve problems and reach conclusions besides science.
Our resistance is to bad philosophy, such as the God-of-the-Gaps philosophy that you are pushing. You seem to think that the best place to find God is in our ignorance. That doesn't seem very inspiring to me.
As to "other ways to solve a problem", when has a supernatural explanation ever turned out to be right? It would seem to me that science has found non-supernatural explanations for thousands of things that used to be credited to the supernatural. Why shouldn't we expect this trend to continue?
"Feeling the Future: Experimential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."
Daryl J. Bem
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Is this one of science's great explanations for things that used to be credited to the supernatural?
"The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal's regular review process. Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript, he said, and these are very trusted people.
All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though 'THERE WAS NO MECHANISM BY WHICH WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS.'
I'll stand on my conclusion that God created the universe and all we know is a scientific conclusion.
I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world?
Edited by shadow71, : sorry cite does not come up, but google asp paper
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 3:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Coyote, posted 01-06-2011 8:20 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 547 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 8:54 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 548 by nwr, posted 01-06-2011 9:55 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 549 by Percy, posted 01-07-2011 8:43 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 555 by Taq, posted 01-07-2011 12:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 556 by jar, posted 01-07-2011 12:53 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 546 of 752 (599373)
01-06-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


Review of that article
From RationalWiki:
A response by E.J. Wagenmakers et al. highlights some of the major issues that call into question the validity of the analysis by Bem.[2]
  • Bem has published his own research methodology and encourages the formulation of hypotheses after data analysis. This form of post-hoc analysis makes it very difficult to determine accurate statistical significance. It also explains why Bem offers specific hypotheses that seem odd a priori, such as erotic images having a greater precognitive effect. Constructing hypotheses from the same data range used to test those hypotheses is a classic example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy
  • The paper uses the fallacy of the transposed conditional to make the case for psi powers. Essentially mixing up the difference between the probability of data given a hypothesis versus the probability of a hypothesis given data.
  • Wagenmakers' analysis of the data using a Bayesian t-test removes the significant effects claimed by Bem.
Any new result in any field of science requires extensive independent replication before it can be accepted as valid. This is no different for psychic powers, drug studies, or theories of physics. At least one replication of one of the tasks Bem used has failed to show significance[1], and hopefully others will attempt additional replications. Researcher Richard Wiseman is attempting to create a registry of replication attempts to control for publication bias.
In the end the paper offers some promising methods but should not be taken as evidence for precognition without extensive independent replication of the results, particularly since there are significant questions about the introduction of bias into the analysis of the data.
Source
Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 547 of 752 (599375)
01-06-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world?
Yes, quite so. Why do you mention it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 548 of 752 (599383)
01-06-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


shadow71 writes:
"Feeling the Future: Experimential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect."
Daryl J. Bem
Page Not Found
Is this one of science's great explanations for things that used to be credited to the supernatural?
I'm getting a "page not found" error on that link.
A google search did turn up http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf which I presume is the same paper (perhaps an early draft).
Count me as skeptical. I've seen these kinds of reports before, but attempts to replicate them usually fail.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 549 of 752 (599405)
01-07-2011 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


Hi Shadow,
I fixed your link because it contained a typo. Don't try to type links from scratch, cut-n-paste them instead.
But your link isn't to the paper you cite, it's to the page for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I could not find the paper at this journal. There are five papers co-authored by Daryl J. Bem, and not one of them has this title.
It appears that your information comes from an article in the January 5, 2011, edition of the New York Times, Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage. The reason the paper cannot be found at the journal is because it hasn't been published yet.
Here's a link to an advance copy of the paper: Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect
Here's a link to a rebuttal: Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi
Here's a relevant excerpt from the rebuttal:
Instead of revising our beliefs regarding psi, Bem’s research should instead cause us to revise our beliefs on methodology: the field of psychology currently uses methodological and statistical strategies that are too weak, too malleable, and offer far too many opportunities for researchers to befuddle themselves and their peers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 550 of 752 (599420)
01-07-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 547 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2011 8:54 PM


I thought I was just told by many on this board that if I cannot show evidence of creation it was not acceptalble to the scientific world?
Dr. adequate writes
Yes, quite so. Why do you mention it?
I read about Dr. Bem's paper "Feeling the Future: Expermential evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on congnition and affect" to be published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a copy of said paper can be read by going to Dr. Bem's web site at Cornell.
What concerns me are several quotes about the paper.
This from the NY times on 1-6-2011 In response to the publisher stating we decided to publish the paper "...even though there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results."
"But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extrardinalry and thus require extrordinary evidence."
My question is why isn't the hypothesis that God created the universe and all that is in it, a scientific hypothesis according to the test above?
I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels.
Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2011 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Percy, posted 01-07-2011 11:57 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 553 by jar, posted 01-07-2011 11:59 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 554 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2011 12:12 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 557 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2011 1:03 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 558 by nwr, posted 01-07-2011 2:05 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 560 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2011 11:22 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 551 of 752 (599422)
01-07-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by Percy
01-07-2011 8:43 AM


Hi Percy, thanks for fixing the link.
I just posted about the paper in my reply to Dr. Adequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Percy, posted 01-07-2011 8:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 552 of 752 (599423)
01-07-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


shadow71 writes:
I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels.
The news accounts are full of people who insist they've been abducted by aliens.
Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand.
While responding to your previous post I was wondering what it had to do with the topic, and I guess I should have asked that question instead. I don't imagine that anyone here would object to the scientific investigation of the hypothesis that God exists, but what has that got to do with the topic?
If you're thinking that this means it should be valid for you to propose God as the means by which some event in natural history took place then you're wrong. Except when speculating, science only proposes answers based on known mechanisms, and God is not a known mechanism until it becomes scientifically demonstrated through replicated observations and experiments and through successful predictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 553 of 752 (599424)
01-07-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


of course God can be tested...
Of course God can be tested as soon as some evidence is presented that shows there is a God and a model that suggests how that God intervenes. Until then there is nothing worth testing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 554 of 752 (599427)
01-07-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


New thread?
My question is why isn't the hypothesis that God created the universe and all that is in it, a scientific hypothesis according to the test above?
I can produce many people who will testify that the Lord has helped them and some swear to miracles beyond scientific proof. The bible has many such exhibits in the Gospels.
Thus even though this hypothesis may require extraordinary evidence, it should according to the tests for the above article be allowed to be studied by science and not rejected out of hand.
Perhaps that would be a better topic for a new thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 555 of 752 (599434)
01-07-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though 'THERE WAS NO MECHANISM BY WHICH WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS.'
The difference here is that the authors were able to make predictions of experimental results based on their hypothesis, even if they are lacking a specific mechanism. IOW, they were able to test their hypothesis which is an important step in the scientific method.
There is no testing of hypotheses in creationism. Creationism is a belief that is not challenged. Creationism is a dogmatic religious belief, not a scientifically testable hypothesis.
If the authors of the aforementioned paper were to copy the creationist method then they would cite the lack of a known mechanism as evidence that Leprechauns travel back in time and then whisper the secrets of the future in the subject's ear.
I'll stand on my conclusion that God created the universe and all we know is a scientific conclusion.
Dogmatic religious beliefs are not scientific conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has seen this message but 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