Relevance of origins to modern science

Hi Everyone,

I have been following this forum for quite a while now.... Personally, I am overwhelmed by the amount of posts and topics listed on this forum. However I suppose this is a good place to vent the arguments that relate to beliefs.

I would like to pose, what i feel are two of the most important questions that determine whether scientifically explained origins are religious pursuits or not.

1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?
-A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone?
-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...

Let me know what you think.

Thread copied here from the Relevance of origins to modern science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science? -A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone? -Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

Why should we promote *********?

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...

Based on but not biased.

Darwin (and other) made the initial observations however since then those ideas have withstood testing using lines of inquiry that simply did not even exist in Darwin's time.

1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?

Why bother with adding in maths when you can just multiply.

Knowing how life originates for example can make it easier to find life elsewhere in our universe, why do we need to do that well our earth will be able to support us for about 2 more billion years at BEST. Then we have to find a new home if we want our species to survive. Now sure we could just terraform a planet but i suspect it would be much easier just to colonise a planet that already has life on it.

-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

Why have a whole road map when you can just have a map showing locations of cities but no roads.

Knowing the relationships between species can help for example in experimentation when you just dont want to use say humans because it might kill them. You can use the next best thing that is closly related to us.

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...

The Holy Grail of any scientist is to prove something accepted as Wrong its how you get known, get Nobel prizes, more likely to get funding for your next project. If someone would prove evolution wrong he would have money sticking out of his arse and be on the front page news in every country.

quote:

---

1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?

---

It's kind of a strange question. It's like asking what significance bread has for food. Bread is food, and the study of origins is science. Learning cosmic, chemical and biological origins is just as much a scientific pursuit as learning how to make a new vaccine.

In any case, biological evolution certainly is useful for understanding all kinds of things in biology. If you want to know the mutation rate in a region of the human genome (something that is useful for all kinds of reasons), for example, the easiest way is to compare the human and chimpanzee genomes; this only makes sense if they share a common ancestor. If you want to find regions of the genome that have been under recent positive selection, you again compare genomes.

quote:

---

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea...

---

Darwinist ideas are used as the basis for inference because they explain and predict data very well. When non-Darwinian ideas do a better job with the data (e.g. with horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis), then biologists have no trouble adopting them. If someone wants to replace Darwinian ideas wholesale in biology, all he or she has to do is explain the data better.

I would like to pose, what i feel are two of the most important questions that determine whether scientifically explained origins are religious pursuits or not.

That's kinda like asking if a white tablecloth is black or not...

1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?

Its just another piece of the pie. Science tries to figure out what it can, origins is just another thing its working on.

-A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone?

I don't see why not? You got any reason to suggest otherwise?

-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

So that we are accurately mapping the territory. Its just to be thorough and there's no reason to stop.

2) Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? I.e. Because Darwin observed the similar beaks, inferences regarding similar genomes on a global scale, follow in his evolutionary idea... Let me know what you think.

Well, do you know how baby animals come to exist? They are offspring of their parent animals. Animals come from animals. If you follow then lines backwards, you're going to funnel up into the tree back to a common ancestors of whatever two animals you're looking at.

There's no other way for animals to get here except from other animals so it only makes sense that if you go back far enough then they're all related. How else could it be?

Jar said: "Based on but not biased.

Darwin (and other) made the initial observations however since then those ideas have withstood testing using lines of inquiry that simply did not even exist in Darwin's time."

Just to comment

I would think that it is slightly biased. The reason being, in the discussion of most Scientific literature you would try to either relate (or appose) the empirical data to a current model, which you (the Scientist) may or may not be in favor of. So when Scientists infer according to how well the model fits with the darwinist ideal, this already prevents the inclusion of any other possibility. Furthermore, it often takes many years to discredit a current model, E.g. Einstein's theory on relativity was thought to be perfect, only to be found incomplete in latter years...

I would like to pose, what i feel are two of the most important questions that determine whether scientifically explained origins are religious pursuits or not.

How about if scientists leave religion out of their considerations entirely?

Why? Religion is conducted about 180° opposite from the way science is conducted.

--Religion relies on belief, scripture, dogma, revelation and the like, while science relies on evidence.

--When there are disagreements within religion you end up with wars (e.g., Sunni/Shiite, Protestants/Catholics in northern Ireland) or schisms (ca. 40,000 different sects or denominations of Christianity). Disagreements among scientists are decided using evidence.

--Finally, science deals with the real world.

Ra3MaN writes: -Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that knowing the tree of life would have absolutely no practical value whatsoever, that it would be of purely academic interest. Why shouldn't we study it anyway?

--Percy

The reason being, in the discussion of most Scientific literature you would try to either relate (or appose) the empirical data to a current model, which you (the Scientist) may or may not be in favor of. S

Again you are simply showing how little you know about what science is. Any scientist that suppressed data that refuted the initial position would lose their job; all of there past, current and future work immediately questioned.

Science is NOT religion and has built in checks for bias.

And your example of Einstein's Theory of Relativity or ANY other scientific theory is NEVER thought by scientists to be complete. All theories are held as tentative and subject to change, revision or replacement.

Knowing how life originates for example can make it easier to find life elsewhere in our universe, why do we need to do that well our earth will be able to support us for about 2 more billion years at BEST. Then we have to find a new home if we want our species to survive. Now sure we could just terraform a planet but i suspect it would be much easier just to colonise a planet that already has life on it.

Interesting... That makes me want to disregard envorment protection . The stats in colonising a different planet is daunting. Our current rock seems to be the best place for life thus far.

-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life? Why have a whole road map when you can just have a map showing locations of cities but no roads. Knowing the relationships between species can help for example in experimentation when you just dont want to use say humans because it might kill them. You can use the next best thing that is closly related to us

The difference with road maps is that we can travel to the common denominator in the "cladogram" at any time.

I understand. The data set, however, is genetics, so if comparing an ape with a human, there is much genetic similarity. The point I wanted to get across is that since there are genetic similarities witnessed in apes and man, there is already sufficient information to carry out testing (whatever that may be). Anything more is not necessary.

Well, do you know how baby animals come to exist? They are offspring of their parent animals. Animals come from animals. If you follow then lines backwards, you're going to funnel up into the tree back to a common ancestors of whatever two animals you're looking at. There's no other way for animals to get here except from other animals so it only makes sense that if you go back far enough then they're all related. How else could it be?

I guess that may be true. If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people? Unfortunately,we can't live long, thus the scope if observations is highly restricted. We as Scientist have to hope that our assumptions of parameters that vary, are true, otherwise the model cannot work. E.g. the assumption that conditions were suitable for chemicals to form amino acids, RNA or simple Data molecules. Furthermore it would be a bias endeavor to infer that a certain type of rock would support the existence of such conditions.

Thus in support of my original statement, The scientist has to apply belief - which is not a solely religious word but also forms the basis of religion.

So that we are accurately mapping the territory. Its just to be thorough and there's no reason to stop.

Honestly, how far back do you need to map e.g. the Human Immunodeficiency virus before you can work towards vaccine candidates?

If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people?

Beliefs should always be challenged.

If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people?

Yeah but.... fuck 'em.

Thus in support of my original statement, The scientist has to apply belief - which is not a solely religious word but also forms the basis of religion.

Meh, I don't see how that it matters?

Honestly, how far back do you need to map e.g. the Human Immunodeficiency virus before you can work towards vaccine candidates?

I have no idea. But I don't see the relevance either?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that knowing the tree of life would have absolutely no practical value whatsoever, that it would be of purely academic interest. Why shouldn't we study it anyway?

I guess we are free to research whatever... we get funding for .

But to some, a simple statement such as, the ribosome is present in all self replicating organsims, therefore the ribosome is essential for life. Which sounds fine to the religious person. The non religous person, could say since the 18s segment is present in ribosomes of all eukaryotes, therefore all eukaryotes diverged from a single organism. The observable fact, became a statement of faith, since we can never see how, in the latter statement that level of divergence is possible. plausible perhaps...