Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 12:19 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,599 Year: 9,635/19,786 Month: 2,057/2,119 Week: 93/724 Day: 25/68 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
3940
...
51NextFF
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
jar
Member
Posts: 30994
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 556 of 752 (599436)
01-07-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by shadow71
01-06-2011 7:56 PM


shadow71 writes:

I'll stand on my conclusion that God created the universe and all we know is a scientific conclusion.

How did God do it?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by shadow71, posted 01-06-2011 7:56 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 557 of 752 (599438)
01-07-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


Scientific Method 101
Hi Shadow,

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?

It is because there is a big difference between what Bem is saying and what you have been saying.

It appears to me that Bem believes that he has found a phenomenon (let's just ignore the fact that he is almost certainly wrong for now). He is not claiming to have an explanatory mechanism since he cannot derive a mechanism from the data he has. He is leaving that part open to later explanations. Nor is he claiming to have found evidence for the supernatural. This can be seen in this quotation from the paper;

Bem writes:

The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive; it neither implies that such phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms.

You are doing something very different. You are taking a phenomenon (endosymbiosis) and adding in an unwarranted explanatory mechanism; the Christian god. This is entirely different to how Bem is operating. You are not systematically seeking an explanatory mechanism for the origin of eukaryotes, you are just inserting your own pet explanation after very little investigation. To make matters worse, you have settled upon a supernatural explanation, something that makes your ideas incompatible with the scientific practice of methodological naturalism.

The Bem paper is bad science. It has been roundly criticised. It apparently contains serious statistical errors that the authors completely missed. It has been torn to shreds before it has even been published. Sadly, your ideas about the divine origins of eukaryotes do not even come close to being as scientifically credible as Bem's junk paper.

You have inserted an unwarranted explanatory mechanism, you have invoked the supernatural, your idea is completely unfalsifiable, you have based your thinking upon a blatant logical fallacy (the God of the Gaps) and you have even cherry picked which supernatural explanation to use (why the Christian God? Why not Brahma? Or Odin?). I'm sorry dude, I am honestly not trying to upset or insult you here, but your ideas about God making the eukaryota are not in the least bit scientific. They may suit you just fine as speculation or theology, but they are by no means scientific.

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.

But that's just anecdote. Very obviously, it is anecdote. Science does not deal in anecdote. Anecdote might, at best, point a researcher in an interesting direction of inquiry, but anecdote is not accepted as scientific evidence on its own.

To be honest (and again, I am not trying to belittle you here, but I have to call it as I see it) this is Scientific Method 101. It is not complicated or obscure stuff that you are getting wrong here, it's the very basics of scientific enquiry. Anecdote does not count as evidence. Supernatural explanations are not science. Inserting cherished dogmas into gaps in our understanding is definitely not science. This is the kind of stuff that anyone with a scientific hypothesis to promote needs to know. You should already be familiar with these concepts. The fact that you are not suggests to me that some reading up on the scientific method or philosophy of science might be in order.

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.

No-one is rejecting your ideas out of hand. Your ideas are meeting resistance because they contain several glaring errors in logic and because they do not follow the scientific method. It's nothing personal, but even if you can't see these problems, others on this forum can and, this being a debate site, we're not likely to just let you off the hook on that. Sorry.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 558 of 752 (599449)
01-07-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


shadow71 writes:
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."


I agree that's a bad criticism. Science doesn't have to wait for mechanism.

Bem's results show an effect only a little better than chance. If he had shown a far stronger effect, and if others could reproduce it, then this would be good science.

As it is, however, the effects reported are marginal though they test as significant. My concern would be on whether there were methodological errors that allowed a bias to creep in.

As for whether the journal should have accepted the paper - I leave that to the editors. It's not entirely unreasonable to publish uncertain results, and then expect other scientists to attempt to replicate the work. The journal cannot be expected to run its own lab and attempt to replicate before accepting. On the other hand, there's a long history of such psychic claims, with marginally positive results. And there's an equally long history of failure to replicate such claims. I'll admit to being surprised that the paper was accepted.

Incidentally, Jerry Coyne has posted about this on his blog: Psychic paper provokes backlash


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 4:57 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

shadow71
Member (Idle past 1104 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 559 of 752 (599472)
01-07-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by nwr
01-07-2011 2:05 PM


As for whether the journal should have accepted the paper - I leave that to the editors. It's not entirely unreasonable to publish uncertain results, and then expect other scientists to attempt to replicate the work. The journal cannot be expected to run its own lab and attempt to replicate before accepting. On the other hand, there's a long history of such psychic claims, with marginally positive results. And there's an equally long history of failure to replicate such claims. I'll admit to being surprised that the paper was accepted.

My thoughts are that this was not an appropriate paper for a scientific journal.
Bluejay 541, percy 552 coyote 554 and others, I agree I got off the OP. Sorry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by nwr, posted 01-07-2011 2:05 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 560 of 752 (599497)
01-07-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by shadow71
01-07-2011 11:45 AM


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'm fairly sure that he didn't create "all that is in it" --- for example, some of the motor cars were created by Ford.

As to whether it's a scientific hypothesis, it could be made into one only by being more specific. The problem is that when you combine the proposition that God can do things that are impossible with the proposition that he moves in mysterious ways, you have a hypothesis which is consistent with any conceivable state of affairs, and which is therefore untestable.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by shadow71, posted 01-07-2011 11:45 AM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Tram law
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 561 of 752 (606499)
02-25-2011 6:42 PM


How does the Platypus fit in with evolution? Does it have any ancestors, direct or indirect, or does it just appear from out of nowhere and doesn't have any place in evolution?

How does natural selection relate to evolution? Is it something that is completely different than evolution? Can natural selection happen without evolution?


Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Rahvin, posted 02-25-2011 7:08 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 563 by Blue Jay, posted 02-25-2011 9:02 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 566 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 3:36 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 562 of 752 (606502)
02-25-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Tram law
02-25-2011 6:42 PM


Hi Tram,

The Platypus is a monotreme, which are hypothesized to have branched into marsupials (meaning the platypus and, say, a kangaroo would share a common ancestor).

There aren't many extant species of monotremes around, and the platypus just looks damned weird, so there are a lot of old wives tales and false perceptions around. But the platypus fits into the tree of life just like any other species.

Fossil evidence told us a little, but genetics has revealed an awful lot more about the ancestry of the platypus. You should check out the wiki page at the very least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Tram law, posted 02-25-2011 6:42 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 868 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 563 of 752 (606512)
02-25-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Tram law
02-25-2011 6:42 PM


Hi, Tram

Tram law writes:

How does the Platypus fit in with evolution? Does it have any ancestors, direct or indirect, or does it just appear from out of nowhere and doesn't have any place in evolution?

Start here.

There are three species of echidna, or spiny anteaters, which are related to the platypus (i.e., they are monotremes, but they're in a different family). There are also three fossil species of echidna so far known.

There are also about half a dozen fossil species of platypus, in four genera and three families. They go back as far as the early Cretaceous (~120 million years ago).

With so few fossils, it's likely that monotremes have always been rather uncommon. We may never get a good picture of how they evolved.

Edited by Bluejay, : borked the "url" tag


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Tram law, posted 02-25-2011 6:42 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Tram law
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 564 of 752 (606639)
02-27-2011 1:28 PM


I had already read that article thanks.

There is a lot about evolution I do not understand.

Edit:

Is the debate about Evolution vs Creationism a false dichotomy? It states in the wiki that a false dichotomy sets up an either or answer to a question. The only answers to evolution is it's either evolution or creationism. So would that be a false dichotomy?

Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2011 2:20 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 565 of 752 (606651)
02-27-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Tram law
02-27-2011 1:28 PM


The only answers to evolution is it's either evolution or creationism.

Well, no, we can imagine several other answers. However for the most part no-one advocates them because they're neither well-evidenced nor in conformity with their religious beliefs.

However, it is possible in principle and occasionally in practice for people to believe something different from either.

The moral is that creationist rhetoric against evolution or against the theory of evolution wouldn't particularly confirm their view even if their anti-evolutionary arguments were right --- not while we can imagine a whole bunch of other non-evolutionary views which are equally poorly evidenced. Reason would require that we should either find evidence that allowed us to pick one non-evolutionary hypothesis, or remain agnostic between them. The fact that out of all of them only creationism is popular would not give us a rational cause for preferring it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Tram law, posted 02-27-2011 1:28 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 566 of 752 (606660)
02-27-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Tram law
02-25-2011 6:42 PM


Tram law writes:

How does natural selection relate to evolution? Is it something that is completely different than evolution? Can natural selection happen without evolution?

Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution. Suppose you have cows which due to genetic variation have different amounts of white and black spots. If you as a farmer were to go out and select only a few of the blackest cows to breed, then over time we would expect your herd of cows to tend toward being darker overall.

Since you as a farmer are doing the selecting that is "artificial" selection. "Natural" selection would be something like cow-eating wolves being able to eat the lighter cows more easily, which meant darker cows were more often able to survive to breed. Or maybe the lighter cows tended to get skin cancer more often and thus were not as prolific.

This sort of natural selection can happen without evolution occurring for a variety of reasons. For example if there wasn't any genetic variation in the population; if all the cows were genetically identical and never experienced mutations, genetic drift, transcription errors, etc... then the selection wouldn't effect anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Tram law, posted 02-25-2011 6:42 PM Tram law has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 2924 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 567 of 752 (606944)
03-01-2011 8:59 AM


Cows
"One mechanism" of evolution? Mutation selected by natural selection is the only story out there is it not?

How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? How many generations did it take dinos to change into birds?

Natural selection can only select for an existing trait, correct?

How do you falsify the evo dogma?


Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2011 9:09 AM havoc has responded
 Message 569 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 9:21 AM havoc has responded
 Message 586 by frako, posted 03-01-2011 10:42 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 593 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 11:04 AM havoc has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 466 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 568 of 752 (606947)
03-01-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by havoc
03-01-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Cows
havoc writes:

"One mechanism" of evolution? Mutation selected by natural selection is the only story out there is it not?


No, there is also genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer.

How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? How many generations did it take dinos to change into birds?

No idea, but probably alot.

How do you falsify the evo dogma?

By gathering evidence that it cannot explain. And it's not dogma.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 8:59 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 9:42 AM Huntard has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 569 of 752 (606949)
03-01-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by havoc
03-01-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Cows
Hi havoc, and welcome to the fray.

"One mechanism" of evolution?

Actually there are several mechanisms, of which you list two: mutation and natural selection. Genetic drift is another, and for bacteria there is horizontal gene transfer.

How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else?

What is "something else?" - what do you mean here,

Do you mean another variety (among the already evolved vast number of existing varieties) of cow, where one variety is visibly different from another?

Do you mean another species of bovine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow

quote:
Cattle were originally identified as three separate species. These were Bos taurus, the European or "taurine" cattle (including similar types from Africa and Asia); Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle. Recently these three have increasingly been grouped as one species, with Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius as the subspecies.[4]

Is that the kind of "something else" you are looking for?

Natural selection can only select for an existing trait, correct?

Actually natural selection acts on individuals that are a pastiche of existing traits within a breeding population, but yes the traits need to be present in the breeding population to be selected or to affect selection. This is observed in the labs and in the field, and thus it is a fact that natural selection occurs.

The new traits come through mutations. This too is observed in the labs and in the field, and thus it is a fact that mutations occur and provide new traits for selection.

How do you falsify the evo dogma?

By science, not by calling it dogma.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

The theory of evolution is that this process is sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it from all lines of evidence, including existing life, fossils and genetic evidence.

So you need to show that it cannot explain a certain diversity of life. This does not mean showing gaps in knowledge, but evidence that life form {X} cannot have evolved. Good luck with that.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 8:59 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 9:52 AM RAZD has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 2924 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 570 of 752 (606952)
03-01-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by Huntard
03-01-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Cows
No, there is also genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer.

But for creating "new" information mutation is the only choice, correct?

.

How do you falsify the evo dogma?

By gathering evidence that it cannot explain. And it's not dogma.

I cant think of any conceivable evidence that darwinists would not just simply say "well now we know that evolution can do this".

Dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

How does this not fit with the popular darwinian evolution belief?

Edited by havoc, : still learning the ropes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2011 9:09 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 10:03 AM havoc has responded
 Message 574 by Huntard, posted 03-01-2011 10:05 AM havoc has responded
 Message 585 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2011 10:40 AM havoc has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3637
38
3940
...
51NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019