Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 16 of 171 (676319)
10-21-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by eclectic1993
10-21-2012 5:04 PM


I hope that this isn't seen as adding to a "dogpile" , but I am finding your claims a bit unclear.
quote:
My evolutionist friend at work has an interesting way of dealing with life spawning from inorganic matter. He explains that it is outside the purview of evolutionary science. He stated that was a matter for a chemist to work out.
While there are quibbles centering around the problem of defining life your friend is basically right.
quote:
First and foremost, when a creationist speaks about the problem of evolution, it begins with origins. This is why, technically, creationists and evolutionist cannot really debate, because they are not debating the same thing. I bet you all have seen this time and time again on this site.
I don't think that that is the problem. After all we can debate the issues perfectly well. The problem comes when a creationist tries to use the problem of abiogenesis as a knock-down argument against evolution and can't accept that it just doesn't work. Evolution doesn't stand on how life originated. Even if abiogenesis was a part of the theory of evolution falsifying it wouldn't touch on the rest - a major sticking point, for instance, human descent from earlier primates, is completely untouched by any argument on abiogenesis.
So, we don't understand how life originated. But where is the dogmatic faith ? Accepting the best explanation we currently have doesn't seem like dogmatic faith - surely going AGAINST it would be more like dogmatic faith. Can you explain just what you are getting at here ?
quote:
Second to 'origins of life' is another gap I've seen taken on faith.
That is the decoding/reprogramming of DNA to produce more complex forms/combinations of DNA.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Mutation doesn't involve any "decoding" and "reprogramming" is likely to be a misleading analogy. Unless your systems worked a lot like DNA it would take a degree of faith to transfer your results to what is actually going on in evolution, would it not ? You don't actually know if you have a good analogy or a bad one.
Again, if the question comes down to weighing the evidence for and against, going with the answer favoured by the evidence cannot be seen as dogmatic faith, even if we don't know the details. If you could really turn your own efforts into a solid argument you might have a point, but I don't think that you've done that yet. (I would suggest that current a-life experiments using tools like Avida have more relevance, even if that relevance is limited).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eclectic1993, posted 10-21-2012 5:04 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 17 of 171 (676430)
10-22-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2012 5:47 PM


Possible and impossible.
No, Inadequate. Not anything will have happened in trillions or quadrillions of years. If that was the way you make it out to be, then you would see anything happening now which is not the case. What will have happened in trillions or quadrillions of years is only everything that is possible to have occurred at that length. And none of what is impossible.
Some possible things may be taking longer than quadrillions of years, like the life cycle of a galaxy cluster, decay of some elements and so on. No galaxy clusters turning into leprechauns might though be possible ever.
One more thing. You need to learn basic rigour in English and math. Infinitely many is an oxymoron. Sloppy language. Strictly speaking infinitely many is zero.
If non-life turning into life is possible, such occurrences may have indefinite number of instances. If though that kind of process is not in the stars it may not happen even once. Ever.
Then life is as intrinsic to matter as matter is to life. Like Feynman said all that is not prohibited in nature is obligatory. That means that possible and impossible are just good guesses about what is necessarily so and what is necessarily not.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2012 5:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2012 5:43 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

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


(1)
Message 18 of 171 (676439)
10-22-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by eclectic1993
10-21-2012 5:04 PM


My evolutionist friend at work has an interesting way of dealing with life spawning from inorganic matter. He explains that it is outside the purview of evolutionary science. He stated that was a matter for a chemist to work out. He is able to embrace evolutionary theory and "ignore origins of life", and is quite happy. He takes this gap in 'faith'. We laugh together that we're both a couple of 'believers'.
Evolution explains how life changes. That is, it describes how life diversified once it was here. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, the first life could have been put here by God. It doesn't change the theory one bit. It's not that your friend accepts abiogenesis on faith. Rather, it is irrelevant to the question of evolution.
First and foremost, when a creationist speaks about the problem of evolution, it begins with origins. This is why, technically, creationists and evolutionist cannot really debate, because they are not debating the same thing.
Then the problem lies with the creationist since evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I think it is only fair that creationists talk about evolution when they want to debate evolution and talk about abiogenesis when they want to debate abiogenesis.
Second to 'origins of life' is another gap I've seen taken on faith.
That is the decoding/reprogramming of DNA to produce more complex forms/combinations of DNA.
Scientists don't have to take that on faith since they observe it in the data they produce in the lab. We can see the direct results of mutation and selection in such simple experiments as the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment or the Lederberg plate replica experiment. We can also see what mutations and selection are capable of doing by comparing the genomes of related organisms. Want to know how humans evolved? Compare the human genome to that of chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans (and even neanderthals). The differences seen between the genomes contain the mutations that led to us. Our genomes are a direct record of our evolutionary history which makes genetics one of the most exciting fields in biology.
My friend from work explains this 'gap' by saying that millions of years have elapsed, and that anything could happen in that amount of time. I'll be honest, I'm convinced that given trillions of years that life would not 'find a way'.
One of the first things you learn in science is that reality is not forced to behave in a way that you want it to. Whether you are convinced or not, that is how evolution works. That is how reality operates. You can be convinced that the Sun moves about the Earth, but the Sun and Earth will not obey your beliefs.
Your friend is right. Time results in divergence. There is no way around it. Mutations accumulate over time. The more time there is the more mutations build up in the genome and within the population.
Do we understand every single evolutionary pathway that has been taken throughout history? Of course not. However, all of the evidence we have gained so far points to evolution as being the major player in producing biodiversity. When scientists want to better understand how life changed in the past they use the theory of evolution to figure it out, and most importantly, it works. The theory of evolution is ultimately a tool used by biologists to study life, and they use this tool because it really works.
Have you actually considered what we (evolutionists and creationists) share in common in terms of science and beliefs?
Most of the time, we share very little. What creationists call science and what evolutionists call science are often very different. For example, you confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Scientists don't do that. Creationists do. We just view science from very different places. It seems to me that creationists see science as a competing theology while scientists view science as a tool for figuring out how reality works. That is why you insist that there is religious faith as part of science. You project your own religious beliefs onto science and assume we believe things based on faith. At least that has been my observation in discussions like these.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eclectic1993, posted 10-21-2012 5:04 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

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


(3)
Message 19 of 171 (676441)
10-22-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 4:55 PM


Maddenstein
Eclectic1993 ---
For your benefit as a newcomer, I should explain that Maddenstein is a crazy stupid person whom we just about tolerate posting on these forums, because the forum moderators prefer to let in too many people than to shut too many people out. If you are wondering why you can't understand what Maddenstein's saying, or can see that his statements are obviously false, this is because his statements consist of schizophasic ramblings rather than genuine propositions.
I would therefore urge you to engage with people who are not actually insane. I, for example, disagree with you about almost everything we might wish to talk about on these forums, but I am not actually mad. At most, I am misguided. Therefore, we can engage in rational discussion. Maddenstein, on the other hand, is completely round the bend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 4:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminModulous, posted 10-23-2012 8:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 6:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
eclectic1993
Junior Member (Idle past 4172 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 10-20-2012


Message 20 of 171 (676451)
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


Hi Everyone,
I appreciate everyone's effort to inform and to clarify my misunderstandings.
quote:
evolution is biology and abiogenesis is chemistry
This is an important distinction for creationists to appreciate. I've certainly learned this in just a few days.
I believe that God created life from inorganic matter...and that triggered biological processes that we 'observe' today. I see now that ToE (I'll use this instead of evolution) adherents can believe God, natural processes of causality (abiogenesis), or advanced aliens using terraforming could have jump-started life which then follows the evolutionary process.
Generally speaking, is that correct?
@Subbie,
I read the Murrey/Urey topic. Thank you. Given all the research over the past 60 years it still has NOT resulted in a quantifiable recipe for creating life NOR is there a guarantee that it can ever be accomplished.
I do support scientific research in this regard. Who knows the research might help me to grow something in that barren part of my backyard. j/k
I will admit this bit of ignorance. If we work evolution backwards through the precambrian period, what do we end up with that represents this transition between abiogenesis and life?
@Dr Adequate
quote:
Knowing what mutations occur, it is perfectly obvious that there are many --- indeed, infinitely many --- sequences of mutations that would get you from the genome of a fish to the genome of a frog, or from the genome of a monkey to the genome of a man. The limiting factors are the mutation rate and time. That's not faith, that's math.
You did respond to my question about what do we have in common by saying 'very little'. I beg to differ. I agree with what your wrote above with the exception of your transition order. The science that you are speaking (e.g. mutations) is where we agree. I think you'll agree with this example.
Billions of female monkeys each conceive one monkey. Let's say for the discussion that each conceived monkey has had its genome mutated, randomly of course.
Many of these monkeys will die after the first few cell divisions. Many will develop some and then die in utero. In fact, quite a few. Others will be stillborn. Those that live after birth may have some variation (hair length, eye color, size, defects, etc.). A significant number may in fact continue on as if nothing has happened, because some combinations of mutations do not have an immediate effect but linger for several generations.
I will go out on a limb and state that there are more ways to 'break' a species than to maintain it. (think intermarriages)
Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know. I think ToE leans toward the latter.
@ringo,
quote:
Congratulations. You just scuttled Intelligent Design.
Excellent! I'm making some progress. =) I got say as a Christian, I balked at Intelligent Design. I never appreciated God being removed from the discussion. You could replace ID with God, Ancient Astronauts, creatures from the 5th dimension, etc.
@PaulK,
I think I responded to your comments. It's important as you talk with creationists that you state that origins of life (abiogenesis) is different from evolutionary biology up front. You'll then receive a blank stare. Maybe an "Oh, ok! Have a nice day". =)
quote:
answer favoured by the evidence cannot be seen as dogmatic faith
In the absence of any other information, operating on the best information, I would agree. However, if the evidence can point two ways, each of which have merit, then ITS reasonable in my way of thinking to be 'open minded'. I can't tell you how much open-mindedness I've had to muster as a Christian reading and studying science. Of course I admit dogmatic faith since I can't prove that God exists 'scientifically'.
@Alfred,
quote:
You need to learn basic rigour in English and math
Most of the time, we share very little. What creationists call science and what evolutionists call science are often very different. For example, you confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Scientists don't do that. Creationists do. We just view science from very different places. It seems to me that creationists see science as a competing theology while scientists view science as a tool for figuring out how reality works. That is why you insist that there is religious faith as part of science. You project your own religious beliefs onto science and assume we believe things based on faith. At least that has been my observation in discussions like these.
I can accept this. I think it is a correct assessment.
Creationism covers a multitude of scientific fields. I hope you will allow me to put creationism and scientific into the same sentence. =)
The forum could be called something like big bang, abiogenesis,evolution vs creationism. 'evcforum' is sort of misleading....or a 'honey pot'. Well, I'm glad I feel in.
@Dr Adequate
quote:
At most, I am misguided. Therefore, we can engage in rational discussion. Maddenstein, on the other hand, is completely round the bend.
Alfred did teach me to mind more words.
Thanks everyone for your responses.
Regards,
Chuck
Edited by eclectic1993, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 10-22-2012 8:29 PM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 22 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 9:09 PM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2012 9:45 PM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 10-23-2012 1:32 AM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 6:13 PM eclectic1993 has not replied
 Message 27 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2012 9:25 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

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


Message 21 of 171 (676452)
10-22-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


slight correction.
Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know. I think ToE leans toward the latter.
Need to make a slight correction there. It is not change into "higher forms", it is just change.
If we go back far enough, back when life first showed up here on the Earth, it was just single celled (or maybe even less complex than that). At that point the only possible direction life could go was towards more complex critters. But once more complex critters existed evolution was not always towards greater complexity and it was never towards "higher forms".
There is no directionality in evolution beyond what works just good enough. There is no goal other than living long enough to propagate. There is no "higher form" or "lower form", no "more evolved" or "less evolved".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 22 of 171 (676455)
10-22-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


No, don't be fooled by these dogmatists. The question whether abiogenesis had indeed occurred or not and if so then where exactly had it happened, - on earth or elsewhere is central to the ensuing evolution itself. It's one mechanism of change over time for something starting from scratch or mud as this case may be and it's entirely different kettle of fish if life had been at it an indefinite number of times beforehand.
An old hand who remembers many tricks of the trade behaves not in the same way a novice whose memory is a clean slate does.
Panspermia theorists postulate a strikingly different mechanics of change from species to species, etc, if you don't know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

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


Message 23 of 171 (676456)
10-22-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know.
Who is this "we"? Only doesn't include me or geneticists, who know something different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 171 (676460)
10-23-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


Just to respond to a couple of points:
quote:
I read the Murrey/Urey topic. Thank you. Given all the research over the past 60 years it still has NOT resulted in a quantifiable recipe for creating life NOR is there a guarantee that it can ever be accomplished.
I don't think that such experiments are expected or even intended to give a "quantifiable recipe for creating life". The original Miller-Urey experiment was a stunning breakthrough as it was.
quote:
In the absence of any other information, operating on the best information, I would agree. However, if the evidence can point two ways, each of which have merit, then ITS reasonable in my way of thinking to be 'open minded'. I can't tell you how much open-mindedness I've had to muster as a Christian reading and studying science. Of course I admit dogmatic faith since I can't prove that God exists 'scientifically'.
So far as I can tell the main arguments to try to support creationism in regard to abiogenesis are either arguments that abiogenesis can't happen (which can only hurt the case for abiogenesis - they aren't positive evidence for creationism) or claims that the Cambrian Explosion represented a wave of creation (an argument which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny). I don't see either as having much merit.
I don't really think that there is a creationist equivalent or the Miller-Urey experiment or the RNA World hypothesis (both major advances). So I'd have to say that the evidence clearly favoured abiogenesis on Earth, with panspermia a distant second (thanks to evidence like the Murchison meteorite) and creationism - even Old Earth Creationism - coming in third.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 25 of 171 (676474)
10-23-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2012 5:43 PM


engage with people who are not actually insane.
Hi Doc,
I can't say I'm thrilled with this post as a moderator or personally. As someone that has done some work in mental health awareness and de-stigmatization it makes me a little uncomfortable to see a dismissal of someone in this manner.
Even though you have an undoubted skill with words, there's a general tone of disrespect here that I feel shouldn't go uncommented on. If this continues it may well be time for another suspension. I will of course, examine the evidence at the time - but I have a feeling it will be longer than traditional.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2012 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2012 3:54 PM AdminModulous has not replied

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


(1)
Message 26 of 171 (676563)
10-23-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


I will go out on a limb and state that there are more ways to 'break' a species than to maintain it.
That would seem to be a statement based on faith. The evidence shows us quite a different result. You and me were both born with about 50 to 100 mutations. How many genetic diseases do you suffer from? I don't suffer from any, and I doubt that you do either. If we multiple this over just the last 10 generations it results in each of us carrying between 500 and 1,000 mutations. Again, I don't have a genetic diseases that I am aware of. It would seem to me that the vast majority of mutations do not result in lethal diseases contrary to your faith based claims.
Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know.
"Based up on what we know"? What would that be? What we know is that the vast number of mutations are neutral, and that detrimental mutations are selected against so that they do not build up within a population.
However, if the evidence can point two ways, each of which have merit, then ITS reasonable in my way of thinking to be 'open minded'.
The problem is that creationists confuse evidence with faith based beliefs. One is not the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

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


(3)
Message 27 of 171 (676583)
10-23-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by eclectic1993
10-22-2012 8:17 PM


To start with, by way of introduction, I've been studying "creation science" off-and-on since 1981 and discussing in on-line since around 1986. Because of what I've repeatedly found and observed, I have a very low opinion of "creation science" and I am appalled by the crass and consistent dishonesty of "creation science" and of its advocates.
"Creation science" started out in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) which led to the striking down of the 1920's "monkey laws" and which explicitly disallowed the barring of teaching a subject matter solely for religious purposes, which was the sole reason that the teaching of evolution had been barred. The anti-evolution movement then scrubbed their publications and claims by superficially removing overt Bibilical references and quotations and falsely claimed that they were opposing evolution solely for scientific reasons. Thus "creation science" was created as a deliberate deception with the intent of circumventing the courts and of fooling the general public into supporting their political agenda. It was only as a secondary purpose that "creation science" expanded to be used as a tool in proselytizing (ie, to fool people into converting) and as a "support" for the faith of believers.
I draw a distinction between "creation science" and belief in a divine Creator, which is what should be meant by "creationism", though that term has been usurped by "creation science". A creationist (meaning one who believes in a divine Creator) does not necessarily believe in "creation science", but sadly too many have turned to "creation science" in the mistaken belief that it supports their creationist beliefs. Unfortunately for clarity and consistency in terminology, "creationist" and "creationism" as used here, including by me, generally refers to "creation science" and advocates and believers therein. I do try to draw the necessary distinctions where I can.
In far too many cases, "creation science" creationists believe that they must attack and destroy evolution and any other science that they believe conflicts with their theology. Such creationists who come here are therefore much more interested in conflict than they are in discussion. Hopefully, you are more interested in discussion.
To your Message 10:
First and foremost, when a creationist speaks about the problem of evolution, it begins with origins. This is why, technically, creationists and evolutionist cannot really debate, because they are not debating the same thing. I bet you all have seen this time and time again on this site.
That is not the actual barrier to discussion, but rather just one example of the actual barrier.
In order to discuss anything, we need to agree on the terminology that we use. "Evolutionists" (a creationist term that they've overloaded with negative connotations) use the term "evolution" properly, whereas creationists use it improperly, employing many misconceptions and misrepresentations. That is part of the "creation science" methodology of changing the meanings of words both in order to generate more confusion and in order to facilitate their misquoting of scientific sources, part of their on-going quote-mining efforts. As a result their distorted definitions of "evolution", the creationist draws "necessary" conclusions about evolution which are completely false while at the same time rejecting what the "evolutionists" are trying to explain to them. If we both use different meanings for the same words, how could we ever have any chance of understanding each other?
In your Message 20 we find an example of this (my emphasis added):
Mathematically, given enough time, its possible that all species will eventually die out due to enough mutations OR given enough time it is possible that species can change into higher forms. I believe the former to be true, based upon what we know. I think ToE leans toward the latter.
No, that is not what the ToE leans toward. What you are describing there is the "Ladder of Life", an old Lamarckian concept of evolution being a progression from lower life forms to ever higher ones culminating in the Acme of Creation, Man. That is an old, long-discarded view which lives on only in creationists' misconceptions about evolution.
Here's another one. Do you believe that for evolution to be true, then we should see one species give birth to another -- eg, a dog giving birth to a cat -- since evolution calls for one species to change into another? I don't know whether you personally believe that is what the ToE says, but many creationists do and we have seen many creationists make that exact claim about what evolution teaches and requires.
So, for creationists and "evolutionists" to be able to debate and engage in discussion about evolution, they need to both be talking about the same thing. Which means that creationists need to learn what evolution really is and what it really teaches and what its conclusions and consequences really are. Until they do that, we will not be able to make any kind of progress -- which of course is a goal of "creation science".
Second to 'origins of life' is another gap I've seen taken on faith.
That is the decoding/reprogramming of DNA to produce more complex forms/combinations of DNA.
You mean mutation? But we know that happens and we have observed it. Why do you say that's a "gap" that is "taken on faith"?
I've written code that appears to morph into something more intelligent. I've even written some basic self-replication programs. However, it only behaves in the way in which I programmed it to behave. If any of you have ever tried to write code that rewrites itself with each iteration using basic rules (external influences), then you know how nearly impossible it seems.
One of the fundamental problems is that both source code and machine code are very brittle. It takes very little to break it. But life's "source code" is not at all like computer code and is much more flexible and robust.
This is reaching back a couple decades, but have you ever heard of Thomas Ray's TIERRA program? Instead of trying to have actual machine code evolve, he created virtual machines to act as organisms and a flexible code for them to run. As I recall, they would "feed off of" system resources and they would reproduce with the possibility of mutations occurring in their code. The results were quite interesting. For example, they had theoretically worked out what the smallest possible functional code would be and then were surprised when a functional code had evolved which was very much smaller that that theoretical minimum, code which employed a programming trick ("unrolling the loop", as I recall) that nobody had ever dreamed of. The program also evolved parasites that had lost portions of their own function code but which would then, like a virus, hijack another organism's code in order to reproduce. I believe that you would agree that TIERRA did not behave exactly as they had programmed it to behave.
This is an important distinction for creationists to appreciate. I've certainly learned this in just a few days.
I believe that God created life from inorganic matter...and that triggered biological processes that we 'observe' today. I see now that ToE (I'll use this instead of evolution) adherents can believe God, natural processes of causality (abiogenesis), or advanced aliens using terraforming could have jump-started life which then follows the evolutionary process.
Generally speaking, is that correct?
Generally speaking, yes, that is correct. Evolution is the cumulative results of life doing what life does, mainly reproducing and surviving long enough to reproduce. Evolution depends on life existing. It does not matter how life originated, but rather all that really matters for evolution is that life exists and it reproduces. How it reproduces (ie, producing progeny that are very similar to, yet slightly different from, their parents) and how some individuals are better able to survive long enough and are able to participate in producing the next generation of progeny is the grist for adaptation. And how individuals can aggregate in separate populations and those separate populations can then change differently is one thing that drives speciation.
How life originated is a separate question from evolution, since it does not matter to evolution how life had originated. So then really evolution does not necessitate that God be excluded; it's simply that, since science cannot deal with the supernatural, supernatural causes cannot be considered in science.
But anti-evolution creationists maintain that evolution excludes God and will even claim that if evolution turns out to be true, then God either does not exist or is a Liar. They preach that God and evolution are mutually exclusive, whereas in reality the two are not at all incompatible. There should be no more conflict between science and religion over evolution than there is over gravity and, indeed, within science there is no such conflict. It is only within certain factions of religion that such conflict has been created.
The science that you are speaking (e.g. mutations) is where we agree. I think you'll agree with this example.
Billions of female monkeys each conceive one monkey. Let's say for the discussion that each conceived monkey has had its genome mutated, randomly of course.
Many of these monkeys will die after the first few cell divisions. Many will develop some and then die in utero. In fact, quite a few. Others will be stillborn. Those that live after birth may have some variation (hair length, eye color, size, defects, etc.). A significant number may in fact continue on as if nothing has happened, because some combinations of mutations do not have an immediate effect but linger for several generations.
I will go out on a limb and state that there are more ways to 'break' a species than to maintain it. (think intermarriages)
Err, "intermarriages"? Huh? I think you need to explain this one. But until then, ...
We could start with the question of what a mutation is, but you seem to be on the right track. While "mutation" can refer to all kinds of changes, such as during development due to external factors (eg, thalidomide), the only mutations that are of any interest in evolution are genetic mutations and, furthermore, only those genetic mutations that are carried in the germ cells (ie, sperm and ova). These mutations are few in number and fairly well understood.
For example, there's duplication, which is why we have multiple alleles, multiple copies of the same gene (eg, skin color is not black or white, but rather varying shades of brown because of greater or lesser numbers of skin color genes that are dominant (produces melanin)). I cannot think of any situation in which this kind of mutation would be deliterious. For that matter, when we have a gene mutate to produce a new protein, we don't lose the ability to produce the old protein because of the duplicates of that old gene that had been produced through this mutation.
There's also base substitution. This mutation will normally cause one amino acid within a protein's sequence to change. What effect this will have depends on the protein and the position within the protein that's been changed. In many proteins, a large of number of positions can accept just about any amino acid without affecting the protein; this is how we get the differences between species within the same proteins. It could have a profound effect, creating a new protein. Or it could disable the gene, or reenable a disabled gene. All kinds of possibilities, many of which are either potentially beneficial or at least neutral.
Now with base insertion and deletion, we get a "frame shift" which completely changes the amino acid sequence. I find it hard to not see this as most commonly disabling that gene.
There are others which you can read up on; eg here in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/...#Classification_of_mutation_types
From what I understand, most seeds that are planted fail to germinate, less than 50%. And I've heard that about half of all conceptions end up spontaneously aborting, most of them even before the zygote could implant itself. And I could accept that practically all such cases were due to genetic inviability, some mutation or other genetic abnormality (eg, mistake in either meiosis or in subsequent zygotic mitosis). And many later-term miscarriages and still-borns may also be due to their not being genetically viable. And we have the ones who do come to full term and are born, but who do not survive infancy or childhood; I could accept that many of these were not strong and healthy enough to survive and that this could in turn often be traced back to some genetic weakness.
However, here is where I would disagree with you, because you forget that those who do survive to be able to reproduce are viable. What happened to the individuals who got a deliterious mutation? They did not survive; they were eliminated from the gene pool. What happened to the individuals who got a neutral or a beneficial mutation? Being about as viable as their parents, they stood a good chance of surviving. As long as enough viable members of a population survive to reproduce, you should not see a species "breaking". And even if a deliterious mutation is carried by a viable member and passed on, when it does try to express itself that individual would wind up with the ones who don't make it.
I can't tell you how much open-mindedness I've had to muster as a Christian reading and studying science.
I would imagine that if you had not been taught that science was somehow in opposition to your religion, then you would have had no need to muster open-mindedness in order to read and study science. Now, who would have taught you that and why?
Of course I admit dogmatic faith since I can't prove that God exists 'scientifically'.
Nobody can either prove or disprove God, scientifically or in any other way. Douglas Adams' babblefish notwithstanding.
And yet, "creation science" has done the impossible: it has disproven God. How? Very simply by creating a way to test for God, though you first have to accept their premises based on their contrary-to-fact claims that basically boil down to "if the physical world is as we find it, then God does not exist." And, of course, the world is indeed as we find it. And as a result, "creation science" has caused many of its believers to leave the faith. Several "evolutionist" members here used to be young-earth creationists. In the schools, "creation science" "public school" materials urge the students to decide between their "unnamed Creator" and "atheistic evolution", which has caused some students to choose atheism (this has been documented in the elementary grades). Those, along with it keeping non-believers from ever being able to give Christianity any serious thought, makes "creation science" one of the leading contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.
@Alfred,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to learn basic rigour in English and math
Most of the time, we share very little. What creationists call science and what evolutionists call science are often very different. For example, you confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Scientists don't do that. Creationists do. We just view science from very different places. It seems to me that creationists see science as a competing theology while scientists view science as a tool for figuring out how reality works. That is why you insist that there is religious faith as part of science. You project your own religious beliefs onto science and assume we believe things based on faith. At least that has been my observation in discussions like these.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can accept this. I think it is a correct assessment.
Actually, Alfred only provided the first line, which he then followed with his usual gibberish.
The main body was written by Taq in Message 18. It was its clarity that alerted me to the fact that it couldn't have been written by Alfred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by eclectic1993, posted 10-22-2012 8:17 PM eclectic1993 has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 28 of 171 (676596)
10-24-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2012 5:43 PM


Re: Maddenstein
What was it exactly in my message, Inadequate, that prompted you to hurry to dismiss it as insane?
Was it the suggestion infinity is not a quantity? You may disagree together with Cantor and Hilbert but that's just a difference in opinion. I can back up mine. Can you do the same?
Or was it my suggestion that galaxy clusters are quadrillions of years old? Well, you may be of opinion that the whole of existence is only 13.7 billions years old. That's an opinion currently voted to be correct. I don't share that opinion so don't vote it up. I reckon that the Universe has no possible age but the local structures in it take longer to form than the duration ascribed by the current dogma to the whole of existence.
Or was it Feynman quoted to depart from the usual quantum probability tripe and suggest that necessity rules throughout? Applied to abiogenesis that makes the process either necessary or impossible. Which is the case is not clear so is a matter of faith and not probability.
That's all more than misguided on your part. That is an attempt to present opinions you don't like as madness. Which is a totalitarian trick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2012 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 7:30 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 29 of 171 (676597)
10-24-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 6:54 AM


Re: Maddenstein
Or was it my suggestion that galaxy clusters are quadrillions of years old?
I reckon that the Universe has no possible age
I would dismiss that, given what we know about the age of the Universe.
Or was it Feynman quoted to depart from the usual quantum probability tripe and suggest that necessity rules throughout? Applied to abiogenesis that makes the process either necessary or impossible. Which is the case is not clear so is a matter of faith and not probability.
This sounds like bollocks.
Which is a totalitarian trick.
Saying that you are insane is not totalitarian. You may not be insane but your ability to debate is fucking rubbish.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 6:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 7:57 AM Larni has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 30 of 171 (676598)
10-24-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Larni
10-24-2012 7:30 AM


Re: Maddenstein
Sorry, Larn, but your dismissal is a bare assertion. No backing. Unless the Universe is a relative, finite object surrounded with an environment greater than itself, it may have no age. Duration is a comparative assessment: greater than that but lesser than something else. The Universe lacks any standard to assess its duration by so has no age by definition. It's your reasoning and debating skills that are poor.
Who are we? Relying on authority? You yourself know nothing. Buy a telescope, watch the sky, learn to calculate the peculiar galaxy velocities going towards the formation of such clusters as the Sloan Great Wall and others and then talk about how long the process may have taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 7:30 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 9:45 AM Alfred Maddenstein 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