Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
756 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, marc9000, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 748 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,892 Year: 21,928/19,786 Month: 491/1,834 Week: 491/315 Day: 87/82 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 451 of 530 (536989)
11-26-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:02 AM


Darwin about falsification
Peg, quoting Darwin, writes:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 154.

I wonder what darwin would think today

I think he would be absolutely over the moon if he saw what his initial framework had grown into, and how his theory was utterly and thoroughly vindicated by the evidence from so many different lines of investigation as we have today.

Your quote actually catches Darwin in one of his brilliant moments: long before the concept of falsifiability had been formally defined as one of the cornerstones of scientific theorizing, he effectively told us in no uncertain terms how it ought to be done.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:02 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:42 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 452 of 530 (537033)
11-26-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:31 AM


Missing Parts
can the living cell survive without all its parts?

So what if it can't?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:31 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 453 of 530 (537106)
11-27-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Parasomnium
11-26-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Parasomnium writes:

Your quote actually catches Darwin in one of his brilliant moments: long before the concept of falsifiability had been formally defined as one of the cornerstones of scientific theorizing, he effectively told us in no uncertain terms how it ought to be done.

so he was a philosopher

which probably explains why the ToE has gone thru so much change since he penned it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Parasomnium, posted 11-26-2009 7:52 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2009 1:17 AM Peg has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 454 of 530 (537107)
11-27-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Peg
11-27-2009 12:42 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
which probably explains why the ToE has gone thru so much change since he penned it.

Why should change in a theory be a problem? It becomes increasingly accurate as it changes, and you should consider that a good thing.

Unless you see the theory as dogma, unchanging from the beginning. Is that perhaps the problem?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 12:42 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Coyote has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 455 of 530 (537108)
11-27-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Coyote
11-27-2009 1:17 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Coyote writes:

Why should change in a theory be a problem? It becomes increasingly accurate as it changes, and you should consider that a good thing.

i agree that accuracy is a good thing

but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2009 1:17 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2009 2:49 AM Peg has responded
 Message 458 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 3:45 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 459 by bluescat48, posted 11-27-2009 10:03 AM Peg has responded
 Message 461 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2009 2:20 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 462 by Parasomnium, posted 11-27-2009 4:19 PM Peg has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 456 of 530 (537117)
11-27-2009 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Peg
11-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???

Who cares?

Science is not a personality cult. Tens of thousands of scientists have contributed over the decades, each building on the work of those who went before.

But Darwin got the major idea, and that has stood up well.

I don't know why creationists keep after Darwin, as if personal attacks would change the theory or lessen the evidence. On another website a crazed anti-evolution zealot keeps claiming that Darwin inspired Marx and Hitler, led directly to eugenics, and other nonsense, as if any of that would somehow make the theory of evolution go away.

I guess if you have no evidence against the theory you attack the originator, eh?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:21 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 632 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 457 of 530 (537119)
11-27-2009 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:31 AM


Re: Creation website much?
Peg writes:

can the living cell survive without all its parts?


No. So what?


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:31 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 458 of 530 (537122)
11-27-2009 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Peg
11-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???

Who expects you to believe that Darwin was spot on? What a stupid thing to expect. Please state who did this so that we can laugh at them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2526 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 459 of 530 (537161)
11-27-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Peg
11-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
(Attempts to edit by asgara)...... the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on??? (does this work?)

AbE: Well, editing seems to be working.

This is what I was trying to post:

but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???

This is normal for theories,> As further work itro a theory is done, changes often are made do to increased knowledge on the subject or newer discoveries alter the original concept.

For example, Antoine Lavoisier proposed that oxidation was combining a substance with oxygen as in burning. This was later altered to include any reaction in which the same type of reaction, oxidation reduction, occurs ie the reaction between sodium & chlorine. After the discovery of sub atomic particles the theory was further and is now that oxidation is the loss of electrons & reduction is the gaining of electrons. The theory has been modified but not overturned, it is still the same theory. The same can be said for the periodic law, gravity & evolution. The theories have been modified but still are the same theories. Science does not deal in absolutes which is why theories are what science deals with. Scientists are constantly trying to refine theories.

Edited by bluescat48, : didnot post correctly

Edited by bluescat48, : still did not post

Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

Edited by bluescat48, : try again

Edited by AdminAsgara, : attempting to edit post

Edited by Admin, : Edit test.

Edited by bluescat48, : added what the post was supposed to read

Edited by bluescat48, : qs error


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2432 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 460 of 530 (537173)
11-27-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:31 AM


Clarification
I'm not sure what question you are really asking here. If you are asking ...

"If we remove any specific part of a modern living cell will it cease to survive?"

Then the answer is no. There are some parts whose removal will compromise the cells viability, but there are others whose removal will still allow the cell to function. Depending on the specific flavour of irreducible complexity you prefer this either does or doesn't make a living cell irreducibly complex.

If on the other hand you are asking ...

"If we remove all the parts of a living cell will it still survive?"

Then clearly the question is nonsensical because having removed all of its parts there will be no cell left to survive.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:31 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:32 AM Wounded King has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20325
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 461 of 530 (537199)
11-27-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Peg
11-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Hi Peg,

i agree that accuracy is a good thing

So therefore, any change to a theory that improves its accuracy is a good thing.

but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???

The theory that Darwin coined was that Descent with Modification through the process of Natural Selection resulted in the development of new species.

Darwin on Line
Origin of Species editions
Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [1st edition]

(you can read the entire text and compare it to later editions to see what the changes are)

Curiously, evolution still holds that descent with modification by means of natural selection does occur, not just in life in general, but in speciation events where new species arise. It's just that a more accurate description now includes several things not known in Darwins time.

This is similar to the change in the theory of gravity from Newton to Einstein, the new theory encompasses the old theory (and defaults to it in certain circumstances) but it is more accurate as a description of (currently) observed behavior.

Enjoy.


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 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1033 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 462 of 530 (537217)
11-27-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Peg
11-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Peg writes:

so [Darwin] was a philosopher

which probably explains why the ToE has gone thru so much change since he penned it.

Coyote writes:

Why should change in a theory be a problem? It becomes increasingly accurate as it changes, and you should consider that a good thing.

Peg again writes:

i agree that accuracy is a good thing

but the toe that darwin coined is not the same theory we have today, yet we are expected to believe that he was spot on???

Peg, one hundred and fifty years have gone by since he published On the Origin of Species, and scientists haven't exactly been sitting on their hands in the mean time. During the twentieth century alone we have seen such discoveries as hormones, the chemical bond, antibiotics, the structure of DNA, and the structure of proteins, to name a few. You can't seriously expect a theory that was formed before all of those breakthroughs to remain unchanged after them. It has nothing to do with Darwin being philosophical, and everything with science making progress.

With regard to Darwin's theory supposedly being "spot on": I never suggested that. I merely noted that he was ahead of his time when he pointed out how his theory could be falsified.

O, and one other thing: you don't "coin" a theory. You coin a word, or a phrase. Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest", for example. But Darwin worked on his theory for a good quarter of a century before he published, and he then went on to refine it. To say that he "coined his theory" hardly does justice to the effort he put into it.

Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Peg, posted 11-27-2009 1:20 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Peg, posted 11-28-2009 2:46 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 463 of 530 (537269)
11-28-2009 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Coyote
11-27-2009 2:49 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
Coyote writes:

I guess if you have no evidence against the theory you attack the originator, eh?

well the theory wasnt really Darwins to start with...it was greek philosophers who first suggested that life evolved. Aristotle pictured man at the top of a line evolving from lower life forms and Empedocles believed in the spontaneous generation of life. So the idea's been around for a very long time.

Darwin was the first to put the theory into the context of science and ever since scientists have used the theory to explain life as we know it.

But you have to admit that modern science has shown Darwins theory to have flaws and this has led to much of it being revamped or discarded

I used the quote from Darwin because moleculuar biology proves that Darwins fear is a reality

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Modern biochemistry has revealed just how complex living things really are. Cells can only function if all the parts are complete and working properly. Or IOW, the first complex cell must have appeared instantaneously as a complete functioning unit.

the Cell puts darwins theory to bed so to speak. life did not arise by chance and evolve in the way he and other philosophers described it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Coyote, posted 11-27-2009 2:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Huntard, posted 11-28-2009 2:54 AM Peg has responded
 Message 474 by cavediver, posted 11-28-2009 8:01 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 464 of 530 (537273)
11-28-2009 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by bluescat48
11-27-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Darwin about falsification
bluescat48 writes:

This is normal for theories,> As further work itro a theory is done, changes often are made do to increased knowledge on the subject or newer discoveries alter the original concept.

it would be good if that happened in reality, but with regard to the TOE, it has not happened even though its been adequately shown that the living cell cannot evolve.

bluescat48 writes:

Science does not deal in absolutes which is why theories are what science deals with. Scientists are constantly trying to refine theories.

even if it can be proved that living cells cannot evolve?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by bluescat48, posted 11-27-2009 10:03 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by bluescat48, posted 11-28-2009 10:16 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 465 of 530 (537274)
11-28-2009 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Wounded King
11-27-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Clarification
WoundedKing writes:

I'm not sure what question you are really asking here. If you are asking ...
"If we remove any specific part of a modern living cell will it cease to survive?"

What i'm asking is, will it continue to function as a cell should if any of its parts are removed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2009 10:41 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Wounded King, posted 11-28-2009 6:10 AM Peg has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019