Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:18 AM
28 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,634 Year: 3,671/19,786 Month: 666/1,087 Week: 35/221 Day: 6/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 46 of 78 (716475)
01-17-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:20 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
The link I quoted says

"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAYto measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."

This is not a case of tentatively it is an acknowledgement of a real conceptual limit. I am talking about whether of homology or relation claim can be logically or validly proven.

I think you are clearly overstating the case for the evidence.

Not at all. There is NOT ONE THING that is proven in science ... ultimately there is no way to measure whether any theory is accurate or not.

Notice the difference between accuracy and precision:

Below are some definitions that I think may be useful in this discussion, as these terms have been used frequently and I want to be sure we mean the same thing when they are used:

ac•cu•ra•cy
[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.

  1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
  2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def 6).
  3. Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def 5).

In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's eye the greater the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.

pre•ci•sion
[pri-sizh-uhn] noun

  1. the state or quality of being precise.
  2. accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.
  3. mechanical or scientific exactness: a lens ground with precision.
  4. punctiliousness; strictness: precision in one's business dealings.
  5. Mathematics . the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed. Compare accuracy (def 3).

Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision.

As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise.

To be accurate you have to know where the bullseye IS ... and if you knew that, then you wouldn't need the theory.

You can be highly precise and able to independently replicate results over and over and over ...

... but we don't know where the bullseye IS so we can only make approximations that get refined by determining where the bullseye isn't. It's like playing pin the tail on the donkey, every miss means the bullseye is somewhere else.

Take the case of a finger print. A clear fingerprint is likely to be linked to a person. A smeared fingerprint, whilst being a fingerprint is largely useless. There is not a simple continuum from a clear fingerprint to different degrees of clarity. Some evidence looses all its strength unless it is very clear.

Evidence is not theory, it is fact. Something we accept as true in order to base a hypothetical model to see if we can predict more\new evidence.

So a close genetic pattern in families benefits from lots of shared features. Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.

You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or ...

Again you are confusing evidence with theory.

Theory says that humans and bananas are distantly related, and predicts that if this is true that then there should be some DNA sequences that are shared.

There are, and thus the test has been run and the results validate-but-don't-prove the hypothesis. There is no reason to expect matching sections without some mechanism of relatedness, so if there were NO matching sections between humans and bananas then the hypothetical relationship would be falsified.

So I guess we should chuck all of science and go back to chewing on roots and living in caves eh? Can you prove conclusively that you exist?

This is a horribly dishonest straw person. Why does accepting a limitation in one area of study imply that you are wanting to invalidate the whole of science? I have not said anything remotely likely that. This implies you are trying to force evolution on science like an inseparable package for reasons I couldn't fathom.

First off, evolution IS science, a much investigated, tested and validated science. There has not been ONE thing that has invalidated evolution as an overall working model of life on earth, from the fossil record to the historic record to the record of life all around you. The model works, it gives results and it is massively tested.

Second you don't impose restrictions on reality (you don't limit what can be studied about gravity for instance), only on your understanding of it. Wallow in ignorance if you want but don't call it science and don't call it a reasonable approach to science or knowledge.

The ONLY limitation on science that is rational and intellectually honest is in knowing where there is insufficient objective empirical information to allow a logically consistent hypothesis to be formed to explain the evidence ... and even that doesn't rule out the possibility of that information becoming available at a later date.

So if you want to limit the knowledge about reality that is available to you , then you are free to do that for yourself, but you have no right to ask other people to be so encumbered. Passing laws or regulating science in any way will not stop reality from existing, nor will it stop science from being a valid methodology to investigate reality and to form concepts to explain it. All it could do is delay the inevitable.

... Why does accepting a limitation in one area of study imply that you are wanting to invalidate the whole of science? ...

Have you ever heard the statement that "as long as one person is not free, then none of us are free"? Think about it AndrewPD ... where do you draw the line? where do you stop? at a point that you are comfortable but someone else isn't? Science is not something that can be voted on.

This is a horribly dishonest straw person. ...

No it isn't -- it is taking your precept to its logical limit.


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 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 78 (716476)
01-17-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:35 PM


Explanations of evolution are ideologically and conceptually loaded. A trip to the moon is not.

Was this intentional humour?

The race to the moon was an ideologically driven race to stick it to the capitalists/communists.

And just because science can do something such as create a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it should unless you don't want science to abide by an ethical standards.

Engineers build nuclear weapons, with the assistance of scientists under the funding of government. Is there some knowledge you believe it should be forbidden for humans to acquire through a process of empirical reasoning?

In what way is 'variations more suited to increased replication, will replicate with higher frequencies than those that are not' loaded, and if it is why is that a problem?

Should we have silenced Darwin and Wallace? Is learning how to detect the relatedness of life somehow unethical?

People especially in evolutionary psychology feel entitled to make certain dubious claims "Evolution is true therefore"

There are plenty of fields that are people with those that feel entitled to make dubious claims. 'Creation is true therefore' for a simple counter-example. But I'm sure electricians have plenty of folk making dubious claims and feeling entitled to do so.

I would not surprised that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them.

Well it turns out this is not true. For instance placental mice look very similar to marsupial mice - but their genetics are more different from one another than Humans and Blue Whales.

The Jack The Ripper cases shows how vital evidence can be destroyed or inaccessible leaving us not knowing who the serial killer was which leaves the case a mystery. The surrounding evidence is not sufficient to gloss over this crucial absence.

Indeed. But this would only be relevant if biologists were claiming complete knowledge of natural history and relatedness. But you know they are not.

Does the fact that some murders are unsolved lead to the conclusion that forensic science is useless for detecting murders? No? Then the tools of biology can learn some things about natural history, ancestry and relatedness even if in some cases the evidence is lacking or difficult to acquire.

If you posit evolution you have to mould a theory onto the evidence that you otherwise wouldn't.

Of course you mould a theory to the evidence. What other system would make even the remotest sense? Postulating theories disconnected from the evidence? Sounds positively religious to me.

There are varying degrees of falsifiability and plausibility of claims but some claims are giving plausibility by dint of association with the paradigm (see evolutionary psychology)

Ask around - you'll find EP is much maligned because of the just-so stories that plague the field. It isn't all bunk, but there are psychologists that simply don't understand evolution well enough to make the claims they do. The solution is better understanding of evolution.

Are these issues presented to the lay person? I would prefer not to have to do a degree in every subject to get a decent sample of the issues involved.

I don't have a degree in evolutionary biology. They are presented to any lay person interested in finding out. Books are pretty good for that kind of thing.

So a close genetic pattern in families benefits from lots of shared features. Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.

Cyctochrome c is common to all (or maybe almost all) life on earth. So yes, of curse we have similar sequences to Banana - we are both multicellular life.

You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or being that of and African male. The DNA has to be actually their DNA to make a claim with that kind or level of ramification.

People have been caught because their relatives DNA was collected during investigation. People have been convicted of deliberately spreading virii (such as HIV) based on the relatedness of the carried genomes.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:35 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 8:44 PM Modulous has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 48 of 78 (716479)
01-17-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:35 PM


Confusion and misinformation.
DNA and inheritance via Miescher and Mendel respectively were discovered independently of evolution.

But not independent of biology. Darwin, Miescher and Mendel were contemporaries working on different aspects of biology, and it's a shame that there wasn't communication between them because that might have helped Darwin understand how traits are inherited better.

But Mendel did not have a model for mutation, and in fact had to deal with a small amount of mutation that meant his hereditary tables did not add up to precise mathematical categories.

Miescher classified molecules as (now) nucleid acids, and posited that they were involved in heredity, but again there was no model for mutations.

The picture is not complete until mutations are demonstrated to be the mechanism for introducing new variation into hereditary traits. So yes, technically this is "independent" of evolution, because both mutation and selection are involved.

Curiously, independent discovery in science is something that occurs frequently, because many people are involved in the search for knowledge, not just some maverick or two.

Alfred Russel Wallace is considered by many to be a co-discoverer of evolution and is also considered the "father of biogeography".

The claims in natural selection have been abused by the Social Darwinist eugenicists. The Nazis, Lysenko and others. A scientific theory can be abused and unjustified far reaching conclusions drawn from it.

For example the Nazis "Alles Leben is Kampf" (All life is struggle) and Das erbe

The short movie Das Erbe (1935), which leads over from the animals' struggle for survival and natural selection to a plea for forced sterilization of the mentally ill, marks exactly the point where Social Darwinist biologism turns into Fascist racial policy providing the reasoning for the necessity of euthanasia.

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

And the Nobel Peace Prize was established by the inventor of TNT to reward peaceful use of knowledge due to his dismay at the use for war.

That knowledge can be misused for personal gain or bias is nothing new. That doesn't mean that the knowledge is intrinsically bad, just the people making that misuse argument.

Explanations of evolution are ideologically and conceptually loaded. ...

Nope. What you are seeing is your ideology and conceptual framework getting in the way of understanding the science. Please see [mid-715545] again for information to help you better understand what evolution is.

You would also be well advised to discard anything you "learned" about evolution from creationist sites as it is more likely to be misinformed misinformation than fact and often full of falsehoods.

... A trip to the moon is not. And just because science can do something such as create a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it should unless you don't want science to abide by an ethical standards.

A trip to the moon can be a nefarious ideologically conceived plot to conquer the world if it is to set up a missile base. All knowledge can be misused, but that doesn't mean it should not be pursued, it just means it shouldn't be misused.

One of the best ways to prevent misuse is to make sure people have a solid understanding of the science.

The claims in natural selection have been abused by ... Lysenko ...

Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics ...

This is a falsified hypothesis, discarded by science.

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 45 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:35 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 1:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 49 of 78 (716490)
01-17-2014 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:20 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
The link I quoted says

"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAY to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."

Then it is wrong.

You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or being that of and African male. The DNA has to be actually their DNA to make a claim with that kind or level of ramification.

Well yes, to say that person A is the same person as person B, you need the DNA to be identical. You need less similarity for "is the brother of", less still for "is the same race as", less still for "is the same species as". If biologists propose that you need less still for "is the same Linnaean familiy as", then why would you draw the line there?

Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.

That is not an indication that these similarities lack relevance, but rather an indication that we're distantly related to bananas.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 50 of 78 (716495)
01-17-2014 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AndrewPD
01-17-2014 12:20 PM


Re: approximation of reality vs known truths
The link I quoted says

"Ultimately, THERE IS NO WAY to measure whether a particular phylogenetic hypothesis is accurate or not.."

This is not a case of tentatively it is an acknowledgement of a real conceptual limit. I am talking about whether of homology or relation claim can be logically or validly proven.

It can be as validly proven as any statistical correlation in science. That is what your quote was saying. Can we know with 100% certaintly? No. However, using statistics we can assign a probability to the phylogeny being accurate. A p value of 99% says that there is a 1% chance of a random set of data producing a false positive. When phylogeny after phylogeny has high p values, then we can be quite confident that evolution is accurate.

I think you are clearly overstating the case for the evidence.

If anything, it is being understated.

So a close genetic pattern in families benefits from lots of shared features. Wider genetic similarities are seriously diluted of relevance so that we begin to have similar sequences to a Banana.

The evidence is that the similarities and differences produce a nested hierarchy. Not only that, but we can infer rates of mutation for genes and junk DNA. We can also use genetic markers to track relatedness, such as ERV's. These are one time mutational events that we can use to reconstruct phylogenies.

You wouldn't convict a killer based on the DNA being that of a male or being that of and African male. The DNA has to be actually their DNA to make a claim with that kind or level of ramification.

I think you would be surprised at how DNA is used in forensics. They don't look at the sequence of the DNA. Rather, they compare haplotypes (i.e. alleles) for short stretches of repetitive DNA called STR's (short tandem repeats). They will look at multiple STR loci and see which allele you have in each case, using PCR and a gel to find the the number of repeats for each STR. What you end up with is something akin to a serial number. For example, if there are 4 randomly distributed alleles for STR A, then matching the suspect at this loci will give them a 75% probable match. With each additional match that probability gets higher and higher and higher. It is actually the same type of statistical test that they use to construct phylogenies.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AndrewPD, posted 01-17-2014 12:20 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1077 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 51 of 78 (716498)
01-17-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by AndrewPD
01-05-2014 1:29 AM


Let's not forget the consilience
The conversation seems to be veering a bit into discussions of the moral responsibility of science, which is interesting but not relevant. Taq and others are doing a good job at explaining the patterns of genetic similarity we see and why are valid ways of assessing relatedness. But let's not forget that the consilience between morphological and molecular methods of assessing relatedness is a major point that has not been addressed and seems in danger of going by the wayside. Why should two flawed methods produce such consilience?

That is a good argument for the reliability of using morphology to assess relatedness but the main issue here is the inconsistency of creationists when they accept morphology as valid in one situation and invalid when applied in the same way to assess the same thing.

AndrewPD doesn't seem to have actually argued that he doesn't consider morphology useful to any degree, so perhaps that should be clarified.

AndrewPD, do you accept morphology as a valid way of assessing relatedness in certain cases, i.e. within "Kinds"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AndrewPD, posted 01-05-2014 1:29 AM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 8:20 PM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 52 of 78 (716970)
01-22-2014 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Atheos canadensis
01-17-2014 8:39 PM


Re: Let's not forget the consilience
AndrewPD, do you accept morphology as a valid way of assessing relatedness in certain cases, i.e. within "Kinds"?

I accept likeness as being of value pre-theoretically when one is making a limited claim or setting up a very general category like black or white.

I don't see how you can show that a supposed transitional species is genuinely a relation through morphology.

As I mentioned there is a huge variety of lining species and extinct species which have similar characteristics at some level. The creation of a tree of life seems to be an imposition of order on this mass of disparate evidence with a narrative to explain relatedness not the setting up of a lawful causal relation.

I don't see how the method allows for falsifiability.

Prosopagnosia is an interesting case in the complexity of categorisation. People with this condition have difficulty differentiating between faces which implies that there are cognitive mechanisms that enable us to make more specific classifications or percepts of facial detail. This suggests a lack of immediacy in our categorisation processes. Theorising is therefore influenced by cognitive biases.

What I see is people wanting a theory of interrelations to be psychologically compelling as opposed too being causally explanatory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-17-2014 8:39 PM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 53 of 78 (716972)
01-22-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
01-17-2014 2:24 PM


"Explanations of evolution are ideologically and conceptually loaded. A trip to the moon is not."

Was this intentional humour?

The race to the moon was an ideologically driven race to stick it to the capitalists/communists.

"Driven"means something different to "loaded". We couldn't get to the moon solely on capitalist or communist ideology. It didn't effect the validity of the science and technology.

The evidence in evolution is interpreted it is an interpretation of evidence among other things it seems to have the bias of attempting to explain biology without reference to a creator.

It requires for homology to be over-interpreted to make strong enough links to imply ancestry.

For instance we didn't see the brain evolve from scratch so how can any theory of its evolution be anything but highly speculative? Then the speculations are biased to rule out anything outside of the scientific canon.

[The conversation seems to be veering a bit into discussions of the moral responsibility of science, which is interesting but not relevant. ]

It is useful to gauge what the value and impact of a claim has and whether people are making safe inferences from them. It is putting things in context

Edited by AndrewPD, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 01-17-2014 2:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2014 9:18 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 54 of 78 (716974)
01-22-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Granny Magda
01-05-2014 3:10 PM


I agree. Some truths are impossible to know in practice. It may be that there are truths that it is impossible to know in principle. Either way, that is precisely the point of the scientific method. It allows us to construct the most reliable theories possible in a world that is is full of uncertainties.

What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago? You would need a time machine to validate it.

Am I supposed to start scratching my bottom, swinging in trees and eating bananas? The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2014 3:10 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2014 9:37 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2014 10:24 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 01-22-2014 10:58 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 59 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2014 10:03 AM AndrewPD has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 55 of 78 (716977)
01-22-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:05 PM


What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago? You would need a time machine to validate it.

Or ... evidence.

Am I supposed to start scratching my bottom, swinging in trees and eating bananas?

Also, these so-called "scientists", not content with telling you about your ancestors, tell you that you yourself were once an infant. Are you supposed to start shitting yourself and crying when you want to be fed?

The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.

Well, things can be true even if you don't like the sound of them.

What would a Christian apologist say, I wonder, if someone used the exact same argument against (for example) the doctrine of original sin, calling it "derogatory to human status"?

Is it not, after all, derogatory to humans to say that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21) and that "The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9)? If being derogatory is the test of truth, we can throw the Bible away right now and look for something better.

But surely the apologist would say that human pride is a sin inspired by the devil, rather than a yardstick to discover the truth of things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 56 of 78 (716984)
01-22-2014 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:05 PM


I think we see where the problem lies
What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago? You would need a time machine to validate it.

So, you would have us not examine any evidence from the distant past? You would have us not even attempt to learn anything about what went on before?

As an archaeologist, let me suggest that is a very poor attitude, and one that is not borne out by the evidence. We can learn about the past.

Also, let me suggest that the only reason you don't want us and the other -ologists exploring the past is that you don't like the answers we are coming up with.

Am I supposed to start scratching my bottom, swinging in trees and eating bananas? The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.

And what has that to do with their accuracy? You don't like the results so you badmouth the process?

Better you should first examine how the results were obtained, and check out the process--the scientific method. But then, that might involve some study and learning, and you might have to accept those results if the process and data stand up to your scrutiny.

So, are you up to the challenge?


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 57 of 78 (716987)
01-22-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:05 PM


quote:
What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago?
The mining companies I worked and still work for value studies of rocks millions of years old very, very much. So much so that the Geologists they employ are some of the best paid people in the country.

quote:
You would need a time machine to validate it.
Nope. The mining companies I work for validate the models about the past, built by the Geologists, by digging down to mine those minerals as indicated by the models. They get mightily upset when they spend billions on digging down to get to those minerals as indicated by the the models and find that those minerals are nowhere to be found.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AndrewPD, posted 01-24-2014 2:56 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 58 of 78 (717006)
01-23-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 8:44 PM


"Driven"means something different to "loaded". We couldn't get to the moon solely on capitalist or communist ideology. It didn't effect the validity of the science and technology.

And you can't get to evolution solely on any atheist ideology. Otherwise we'd have come up with it thousands of years before Darwin.

The evidence in evolution is interpreted it is an interpretation of evidence among other things it seems to have the bias of attempting to explain biology without reference to a creator.

You're wrong. It just tries to explain biology. It turns out that postulating a creator is not necessary and that anyone that insists that a creator is necessary is biased (as evidenced by the fact they can't show that it is necessary).

Science is like that - it ignores unnecessary explanatory entities, even if the human bias is to believe they are there. This is a universal trait of science - which is why there is no creator in the study of disease, cosmology, mechanics, ore smelting, oil distillation, anthropology, or indeed anywhere in any science.

Why is it that the overwhelming majority, almost to the point of it being a universal, of people that object to evolution are religious, especially where their religion says something different than observation? Might there be a bias there?

It requires for homology to be over-interpreted to make strong enough links to imply ancestry.

This is not true. I suggest you don't say this in front of people who know its not true or they will suspect you are a liar. I know its false because you failed to show the requirement for over-interpretation in order to infer ancestry, whereas the counter position is documented in thousands of papers. I have been studying and discussing this subject informally for about 10 years, so on that basis also I know its not true. I won't be persuaded otherwise by yet another evidence-free assertion.

For instance we didn't see the brain evolve from scratch so how can any theory of its evolution be anything but highly speculative?

I suppose 'The twin towers were destroyed by radical Islamists' is highly speculative as we didn't see the plan evolve from scratch. I suppose the existence of a creator is even more highly speculative?

Why do you think we have to see something evolve from scratch in order to conclude that it evolved? Do you apply this standard universally? Do you campaign for convicted murderers to go free because we didn't see the murder evolve (develop over time) from scratch?

I think you are just making objections up on an ad hoc basis, which is exactly what someone who is influenced by their own biases would be doing. You are in the unenviable position of trying to convince me you are in a better position to judge a field than the practitioners of that field.

[The conversation seems to be veering a bit into discussions of the moral responsibility of science, which is interesting but not relevant. ]

Then why did you ignore the part of my post about inferring relatedness? Such as when I falsified your idea 'that similar body parts require similar DNA arrangements to cause them'

It is useful to gauge what the value and impact of a claim has and whether people are making safe inferences from them. It is putting things in context

We know that life evolved. It is a fact. We don't have to have observed every evolutionary event to make this inference. I could prove that my parents are my parents, without having observed them having sex, observed the sperm fuse with the egg etc etc.

You have failed to identify anywhere where this so-called bias you accuse others of having comes into play.

Try this: If we share recent common ancestry with chimpanzees - what would be the observable consequences of this fact? Let me help: Our genomes would be more similar to one another than species that share more distant common ancestry. Our anatomy would be more similar to one another that other more distantly related species. Agreed?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 8:44 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 59 of 78 (717012)
01-23-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by AndrewPD
01-22-2014 9:05 PM


What is the value of making a claim about what happened a million years ago? You would need a time machine to validate it.

It has already been pointed out to you that this is untrue.

What I find truly disappointing about this attitude - and indeed that of many creationists - is the total lack of intellectual curiosity. Do you really want us to just throw up our hands and give up? To regard all inferences about the past as taboo? That strikes me as rather tragic.

The purpose of science is to increase the sum of human knowledge. We're not going to achieve that by being defeatist.

Am I supposed to start scratching my bottom, swinging in trees and eating bananas?

Humans do scratch their bottoms and eat bananas. On occasion, they have been known to swing in trees. Personally, I can't see what's supposed to be so wrong about any of those activities.

Chimps don't eat bananas in the wild, since there are no bananas in the forests of central Africa. You might be better off getting your knowledge of biology from biologists, rather than cartoon clichιs.

The implications attached to the ramifications of evolution are largely negative and derogatory to human status.

Really? How so?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AndrewPD, posted 01-22-2014 9:05 PM AndrewPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AndrewPD, posted 01-25-2014 1:52 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 60 of 78 (717124)
01-24-2014 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
01-17-2014 2:57 PM


Re: Confusion and misinformation.
And the Nobel Peace Prize was established by the inventor of TNT to reward peaceful use of knowledge due to his dismay at the use for war.

That knowledge can be misused for personal gain or bias is nothing new. That doesn't mean that the knowledge is intrinsically bad, just the people making that misuse argument.

The abuse of TNT was not an abuse of a theory it was an abuse of a disposition of TNT.

The abuse of evolution has been the use/abuse of theoretical assumptions such as a hierarchy of species and fitness. It allowed people to assume a humans or ethnicity group was on a different level of a hierarchy and people could be deleterious and that humans could be extinguished to improve the process of selection.

The Belgian Ethnologists used this assumption when handing out ID cards and identifying Rwanda as either Hutu or Tutsi. They gave people with paler skin and more European features higher status. They were using homology here and what previously a serious scientific theory phrenology.

It is the theory that allows for the propagation of these ideologies that directly follow its logic.

This is History. Evolution theory was used to justify atrocities it is not a case of the assumptions in the theory simply being benign truths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2014 2:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2014 1:59 PM AndrewPD has responded
 Message 62 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2014 2:12 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2014 8:39 AM AndrewPD has responded

    
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019