|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
shadow71 writes:
I agree that's a bad criticism. Science doesn't have to wait for mechanism.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." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2955 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4726 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4039 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4726 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
"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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
havoc writes:
No, there is also genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer.
"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?
No idea, but probably alot.
How do you falsify the evo dogma?
By gathering evidence that it cannot explain. And it's not dogma.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Cattle - Wikipedia
quote: 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: 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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4775 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024