Attn ID proponents: When a theory is in trouble
Elf M. Sternberg
overwhelming propaganda drumbeat, often pressed upon their gullible
audience desperate for confirmation, that Evolutionary science is in
trouble.
The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
saying this.
On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
the article baldly), five layers to current cosomological theory: (1)
that the universe is undergoing Expansion, (2) it is doing so because
of Inflation, (3) dark matter "explains" the structure of galaxies,
(4) the initial source and (5) dark energy "explains" strange
observations about apparent acceleration of the inflation. As
Professor of Physics and Astronomy Michael Disney puts it, "Dark
Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if
the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come
crashing down."
It turns out that Expansion is under threat. In the 1930s a test was
proposed to analyze expansion, we now have the tools to put that test
to the test, and it turns out that our expectations of expansion are
not met by the evidence. Cosmology is in deep trouble.
But then Disney puts the knife to the Intelligent Design proponents
who would leap upon this when he writes, "While it is true that we
presently have no alternative to the Big Bang in sight, that is no
reason to accept it."
Suck that in: "We presently have no alternative in sight."
We don't hear scientists telling us that the fundamentals of
evolution, the ones Darwin himself described, descent with
modification, mutation followed by selection, are in any way in
trouble. While cosmology is causing astronomers to mutter darkly in
their own press, they *are* muttering and facing up to the fact that
their math doesn't match their evidence. They do it in public.
The same would be true of evolutionary biology *if* it were in
trouble. They don't, because it's not. Unlike astronomy, the
foundations of evolutionary biology are not in any way problematic.
Observations in the field continue to match expectations.
And even if evolutionary biology were in trouble, we presently have no
alternative in sight.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Glenn
can't be falsified is the icing.
Frank J
Ah but there *were* alternatives. They were only promising before the
evidence started refuting them, of course. Now they are in the pile of
discarded explanations like ether and phlogiston.
But interestingly, since there is so much evidence for evolution, it's
easy to cherry pick it to make one of the failed explanations look
better. Unfortunately when various groups started doing that (the
"scientific" creationism era) they could not settle on *one* discarded
explanation to resurrect, and the two major ones that they did pick
looked ominously contradictory.
Enter plan B (what became ID): Don't try to support any particular
faliled alternative, but since they all coincide with popular fairy
tales (that even most major religions don't take seriously these days)
just concentrate on "evidence of design" and cherry pick only to make
evolution look weak. Tbe audience will do the rest. But just in case,
don't forget to define terms to suit the argument, and quote mine like
your life depended on it.
>
> Elf
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988http://www.pendorwright.com/
RAM
You again demonstrate your ignorance of science. He nowhere throws in
the concept that theory can't be falsified. What Disney is saying is
a normative position in all sciences. It is your ignorant assumptions
about the conduct of science that leads you to your ignorant
conclusion. What is precious about this post is the knowledge that
you often call people morons.
RAM
Glenn
Interesting you could conclude such a thing from a view of an
individual's faith.
>He nowhere throws in
> the concept that theory can't be falsified. What Disney is saying is
> a normative position in all sciences.
Now Elf is Disney. Guess it's true that we learn something new every
day.
>It is your ignorant assumptions
> about the conduct of science that leads you to your ignorant
> conclusion.
It is, is it. Just what are those assumptions of mine, specifically
pertaining to what I said?
>What is precious about this post is the knowledge that
> you often call people morons.
>
LOL! Like you, yes, I do.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Nice little statement of faith. Throwing in the concept that theory
> can't be falsified is the icing.
How "special" do you have to be to mis-read your own
prejudices into what I wrote?
I never said that theory can't be falsified. Indeed, Disney's
point is that many fundamental theories of modern cosmology are
threatened with falsification and the need for a revised theory.
Disney's point is that if they're falsified, cosmologists are going to
have to think long and hard about what comes next.
Evolution is having no such trouble. It continues to be a
productive theory that leads people to scientific and technological
progress.
And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
in the wings to replace it.
RAM
Faith is your ignorant and misspecified understanding of how
scientists deal with theory. My conclusions are based on an
understanding of how science
is practiced.
>
> >He nowhere throws in
> > the concept that theory can't be falsified. What Disney is saying is
> > a normative position in all sciences.
>
> Now Elf is Disney. Guess it's true that we learn something new every
> day.
No Elf accurately articulates what Disney is saying.
>
> >It is your ignorant assumptions
> > about the conduct of science that leads you to your ignorant
> > conclusion.
>
> It is, is it. Just what are those assumptions of mine, specifically
> pertaining to what I said?
That faith is a requirement of science and that what Elf wrote about
Disney's statements indicate theory can't be falsified.
>
> >What is precious about this post is the knowledge that
> > you often call people morons.
>
> LOL! Like you, yes, I do.
I encourage you to document this.
I further encourage you to learn science.
My assumption is you won't do either.
RAM
Numerous
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>One of the key elements of the Intelligent Design movement is the
>overwhelming propaganda drumbeat, often pressed upon their gullible
>audience desperate for confirmation, that Evolutionary science is in
>trouble.
>
>The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
>saying this.
Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
either, do you?
Slimebot McGoo
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Ignorance and incense is an alternative that's annoyingly visible.
McGoo
Elf M. Sternberg
The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble. Real scientists admit it
when there's a problem. Evolutionary science is open to the
possibility; ID is just not it.
Glenn
without doubt.
Ritsjoena
> Numerous <numer...@addr.invalid> writes:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
> > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> >>saying this.
> > Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
> > either, do you?
>
> The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
> saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble. Real scientists admit it
> when there's a problem. Evolutionary science is open to the
> possibility; ID is just not it.
>
> Elf
Might that be because creationists/ID'ers know their "theories" are
no match for the observations? Because they know their theories are
wrong? Why state the obvious?
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988http://www.pendorwright.com/
Glenn
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> writes:
> > Nice little statement of faith. Throwing in the concept that theory
> > can't be falsified is the icing.
>
> How "special" do you have to be to mis-read your own
> prejudices into what I wrote?
Buttbrain, this isn't my prejudice, it's an expression of faith, and
you said it (among other things): "The same would be true of
evolutionary biology *if* it were in
trouble."
>
> I never said that theory can't be falsified. Indeed, Disney's
> point is that many fundamental theories of modern cosmology are
> threatened with falsification and the need for a revised theory.
> Disney's point is that if they're falsified, cosmologists are going to
> have to think long and hard about what comes next.
Funny you didn't use the word falisy in any form before, but spoke of
being in "trouble" and having no "alternative". Suck that in, along
with the ambiguousness of "thinking long and hard".
>
> Evolution is having no such trouble. It continues to be a
> productive theory that leads people to scientific and technological
> progress.
>
> And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
> in the wings to replace it.
>
So tell me, Elf, if you think it possible for evolution to be
falsified yet to have no alternative theory awaiting "in the wings".
Be as generous as you wish to what "in the wings" means.
Lee Jay
> On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
> the article baldly),
What article?
Glenn
> Numerous <numer...@addr.invalid> writes:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
> > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> >>saying this.
> > Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
> > either, do you?
>
>The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
> saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.
Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
being "in trouble"?
So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?
>Real scientists admit it
> when there's a problem.
Real scientists, huh. You really mean that a "real" scientist is
honest and admits a problem when he sees one. Nice fantasy you live
in. And disprovable to you, since any scientists shown to not admit a
known problem would be seen as not a "real" scientist.
> Evolutionary science is open to the
> possibility; ID is just not it.
>
The state of any scientific belief or consensus has been shown many
times in the past to not be "open" to change. Change has occured, but
you can't use that fact to support this childish claim that one
particular belief is open to change at any given time. Besides, you
are conveniently painting evolutionary science, and ID, with a very
large brush.
If you are just expressing faith in a belief that is called "fact" is
"open" to change, then you've done nothing here to support that faith.
But with this wide brush you've used, readers don't know what you are
really talking about in particular, yet you seem to think this
ambiguity and generalization adequate to disparage ID.
You're just an atheist loon.
Elf M. Sternberg
Somehow, the URL got cut out. Annoying!
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839;_3LMkSWhvAq
hersheyh
> On Aug 18, 3:59 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> > Numerous <numer...@addr.invalid> writes:
> > > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
> > > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > >>The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> > >>saying this.
> > > Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
> > > either, do you?
>
> >The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
> > saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.
>
> Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
> a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
> being "in trouble"?
Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
fails to be science.
> So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?
Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist. When he does
actual science, which seems to be rather rarely nowadays, he tends to
be a biochemist. Not a particularly leading edge one, but that is not
a serious knock. We cannot all be a Krebs or an Einstein. OTOH, his
"evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
are not science.
> >Real scientists admit it
> > when there's a problem.
>
> Real scientists, huh. You really mean that a "real" scientist is
> honest and admits a problem when he sees one. Nice fantasy you live
> in. And disprovable to you, since any scientists shown to not admit a
> known problem would be seen as not a "real" scientist.
>
> > Evolutionary science is open to the
> > possibility; ID is just not it.
ID is not even an hypothesis. Even the DI has given up on trying to
treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution. They
have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
scientific controversy.
> The state of any scientific belief or consensus has been shown many
> times in the past to not be "open" to change.
Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
or demigods. And it is both human and natural and right that one does
not immediately toss out a long-standing *scientific theory* that has
been supported by many lines of evidence (and that is what it takes
for something to be called a "theory" in science) at the first hint of
trouble. Nor is it reasonable to expect wide acceptance of alternate
theories in the absence of clear evidence supporting that alternative
in lieu of standard theory. Changes in scientific paradigms and
dropping of old theories *should* be a slow and gradual process with
argument at each step in the process.
When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
first millimeter in this marathon.
> Change has occured,
Can you go two sentences without contradiction? Apparently what you
object to is *resistance* to and *skepticism of* change by science and
scientists, not a lack of openness to change. That is, you are taking
a slower than desired (by you) *rate of change* as evidence of not
being open to change. And, even worse, scientists keep rejecting the
pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.
> but
> you can't use that fact to support this childish claim that one
> particular belief is open to change at any given time. Besides, you
> are conveniently painting evolutionary science, and ID, with a very
> large brush.
ID is NOT a scientific theory. It is a vacuous and empty idea. Even
the DI is no longer trying to claim that ID should be taught as
science. Instead they are arguing that one should "teach the
controversy" that they claim exists (and that *they* manufactured).
To scientists evolution is about as 'controversial' as the idea that
the earth is quasi-spherical rather than flat or the fact that the
earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
teachings.
> If you are just expressing faith in a belief that is called "fact" is
> "open" to change, then you've done nothing here to support that faith.
> But with this wide brush you've used, readers don't know what you are
> really talking about in particular, yet you seem to think this
> ambiguity and generalization adequate to disparage ID.
ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.
>
> You're just an atheist loon.
Well, I may laugh like a loon at some of the ideas you present, but I
keep being provoked.
Lee Jay
> Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> writes:
> > On Aug 18, 11:35 am, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
> >> the article baldly),
>
> > What article?
>
> Somehow, the URL got cut out. Annoying!
>
But a much more interesting story with the article included. Thanks.
Lee Jay
RAM
Please document your assertions about my name calling.
I also note your distractor about "lala land" and your inability to
document you understand the relationship between theory falsification
and the conditions for the scientific acceptance of an alternative
theory. There is a very simple answer that all scientist agree upon.
Your ignorance is showing and you start name calling. How very Glenn
of you.
RAM
Bobby Bryant
"Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> writes:
> One of the key elements of the Intelligent Design movement is the
> overwhelming propaganda drumbeat, often pressed upon their gullible
> audience desperate for confirmation, that Evolutionary science is in
> trouble.
>
> The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> saying this.
>
> On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
> the article baldly), five layers to current cosomological theory: (1)
> that the universe is undergoing Expansion, (2) it is doing so because
> of Inflation
Surely that's not correct.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Llanzlan Klazmon
> In article <87d4xkd9ug....@speakeasy.net>,
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> writes:
>
> > One of the key elements of the Intelligent Design movement is the
> > overwhelming propaganda drumbeat, often pressed upon their gullible
> > audience desperate for confirmation, that Evolutionary science is in
> > trouble.
>
> > The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> > saying this.
>
> > On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
> > the article baldly), five layers to current cosomological theory: (1)
> > that the universe is undergoing Expansion, (2) it is doing so because
> > of Inflation
>
> Surely that's not correct.
You are correct. Elf's summary is somewhat awry - especially the
comment about inflation. If you read the actual article he is
referring too, it is a bit more clear. The issue is related to the
apparent surface brightness of distant galaxies. Tolman predicted (way
back when) that all else being equal, the surface brightness of
galaxies should decrease as (1 + z)^4. This is one of the tests that
contradicts the so called 'tired light' ideas as tired light would
predict a linear relationship (1 + z). The earliest useful
measurements about six or seven years ago came in between (1 + z)^2.6
to (1 + z)^3.2 which is well at odds with the tired light hypothesis.
The discrepancy with the power of 4 was claimed to be due to galaxies
having a much higher intrinsic surface brightness when they were young
due to a higher proportion of OBA type stars (Sandage & Lubin 2001).
More recent analysis seems to show that there is still a discrepancy,
which higher intrinsic surface brightness can't account for. If you
have a look through the arxiv.org e-print library you will see that
this is a hot topic at present. Search on Tolman surface brightness.
Klazmon.
DHeim...@tampabay.rr.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a bunch of bull!
ID does not go out of it's way to not make testable statements.
Actually, it is Evolutionists who do this. For example saying the
icecaps were created more recently that the splitting up of super
contients, just because of a time table that they suppose is true.
richardal...@googlemail.com
So how does one test the assertion that an "intelligent designer" is
responsible for structures identified as "irreducible complex"?
Ignoring for now the fact that evolutionary theory *predicted* the
existence of such structures 80 years ago, what potential observation
or measurement could *not* be explained by an "intelligent designer"
using possibly supernatural methods?
> Actually, it is Evolutionists who do this. For example saying the
> icecaps were created more recently that the splitting up of super
> contients, just because of a time table that they suppose is true.
No, it's because of a lot of evidence interpreted by scientists over a
couple of centuries, and part of a complex and robust set of theories
of plate tectonics, astronomical cycles, climatic changes,
sedimentology, palaeomagnetism, palaeontology, geophysics, and other
branches of science which support the timescales, palaeogeographic and
climatic changes involved.
If you have any interest in finding out *why* the founders of the
sciences of geology and palaeontology (many of whom were Christian
minsters, incidentally) formed the conclusions they did, I can post a
list of books and other source material.
As I suspect that you have no interest whatsoever in challenging your
convictions with actual evidence, I'll await your response to this
invitation. It will be a measure of your honesty.
RF
Glenn
respond to what I should have provoked, had you disagreed with what I
actually said.
Earle Jones
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2:55 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> writes:
> > > Nice little statement of faith. Throwing in the concept that theory
> > > can't be falsified is the icing.
> >
> > How "special" do you have to be to mis-read your own
> > prejudices into what I wrote?
>
> Buttbrain, this isn't my prejudice, it's an expression of faith...
*
I'm butting in here owing to Glenn's statement above: it isn't
prejudice, it's faith.
Is there a difference between prejudice and faith?
Simply, faith is belief without evidence. "I believe that when I die I
will go up to heaven."
Prejudice (from pre-judge) means coming to a conclusion before the data
is available.
Sounds to me like they are not too far apart; certainly a lot of
similarity.
earle
*
Noelie S. Alito
> Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com> writes:
>
>> On Aug 18, 11:35 am, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>> On the other hand, cosmology is in trouble. There are (to summarize
>>> the article baldly),
>> What article?
>
> Somehow, the URL got cut out. Annoying!
>
> http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839;_3LMkSWhvAq
>
Damn! My Big-Bang-protecting Usenet-infiltrating URL cutter-outer
has let another one through!
Noelie, off to debug the U-c-o and rewax her Snidely mustache
hersheyh
How would you know?
> ID does not go out of it's way to not make testable statements.
Since the argument is that there is insufficient time for evolution to
produce the observed currently living biota (much less the much larger
extinct biota), one would reasonably think that ID theory would be
very interested in the amount of time available. Nope. They
*specifically* state that ID theory makes no statement about the age
of the earth or any other age. They are *specifically* going out of
their way to avoid addressing a point which is quite relevant to their
argument. When they are being honest, they say that they avoid this
question in order to maintain a "big tent" including a number of
mutually exclusive creationist ideas.
OTOH, evolutionary theory says, quite explicitly, that *if* the time
available for evolution were insufficient to allow the observed amount
of change in genomes (which could not even have been observed when
Darwin first stated his ideas, in part because they did not realize
that genetics were particulate and Mendelian), then evolution would be
impossible. In Darwin's time, the age of the earth was a more open
question, with geologists giving times with a large variance and
physicists like Lord Kelvin saying the sun cannot be old enough, given
its rate of (non-nuclear) combustion. Evolutionary scientists did not
determine the current scientific consensus for the age of the earth,
but they do have to live within it.
ID specifically says that it has no interest at all in determining any
features of the putative "designer" it says exists and who it says was
responsible for whatever feature of life they cannot otherwise
explain. Moreover, they have no interest in exploring or even
thinking about *how* the designer did its designing.
The only thing ID theory seems to do is toss out large meaningless
numbers based on falacious assumptions about a bogus model of
evolution and claim that the numbers mean evolution is not
responsible. That they have no testable theory is why the DI no
longer proposes *teaching* ID in public schools (which is all they
really seem interested in), but instead proposes teaching "the
controversy".
Exactly what testable ideas does ID present that would falsify its
predictions? Let me help. *If* (some feature) of (some organism) were
to be designed by (some designer), we would see the following feature,
whereas such features would not occur if that feature evolved.
Explain why. Or present actual evidence that some feature *was*
designed and manufactured by some *observable* process by some
*observable* designer.
> Actually, it is Evolutionists who do this. For example saying the
> icecaps were created more recently that the splitting up of super
> contients, just because of a time table that they suppose is true.
Evidence that that is the reason why they say this?
bi...@juno.com
> I never said that theory can't be falsified.
Nevertheless, evolution can't be falsified, whether you said so or
not. Sure, you can falsify specific things, such as claimed
speciations. But even that level of falsification seems to be lacking.
For example, I have yet to have anyone here. provide me with an
example where a claimed speciation has been falsified. Why is that?
Perhaps because nobody has ever even TRIED to falsify any of the
claimed speciations? Or is there some other explanation?
However, the point is, that evolution AS A WHOLE cannot be falsified,
(under any circumstances, even in principle) by a REPLICATABLE
experiment. Please note the emphasis upon the word "replicatable."
Every legitimate hard science has the ability to potentially be
falsified by a replicatable experiment. For example, if you suddenly
found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry. Such
falsification is possible purely because chemistry is mathematically
precise enough to be thusly falsified.
Evolution, which makes no such precise claims, compares unfavorably to
chemistry, and to all the hard sciences. It just doesn't bother to
make any predictions that are precise enough to be falsified by a
replicatable experiment.
> point is that many fundamental theories of modern cosmology are
> threatened with falsification and the need for a revised theory.
> Disney's point is that if they're falsified, cosmologists are going to
> have to think long and hard about what comes next.
Yes, because the cosmological theoris are mathematically precise
enough to be in danger of falsification. Unlike evolution, the faith-
system.
>
> Evolution is having no such trouble. It continues to be a
> productive theory that leads people to scientific and technological
> progress.
Evolution is not "productive" in the least degree. Nor has it EVER
given us any technology whatsoever. You simply cannot base any
technology off of a theory that is so vague and mathematically
imprecise as evolution.
>
> And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
> in the wings to replace it.
Of course, ID will do quite nicely as a replacement, once the
irrational bias toward the unproven "assumption of naturalism" is
removed.
bi...@juno.com
> Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
> flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
> people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
> that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
> acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
> fails to be science.
Ha ha. If you automatically define "naturalism" to be the automatic
"truth" then you are correct. However, I deny that naturalism is
automatically true. What say you to that?
>
> Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist.
Don't you know that Behe accepts common descent?
> "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
> are not science.
They are only "not science" if you define science like this:
"Science is the study of naturalism, and naturalism only. Even if
naturalism is false, science still has to study it, and assume
naturalism to be true, even if it is false, no matter what."
Only with that type of biased definition, can ID be automatically
defined as non-science.
On the other hand, if you simply define science as the pursuit of
truth, with no previous biases, such as naturalism, automatically
built in, then ID does just fine.
>
> ID is not even an hypothesis.
Absurd statement. Laughable.
> treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
> something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
> bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution.
FYI: it is a perfectly legit scientific activity, to criticize
dominant theories. You seem to think that science is a faith system,
that must not be criticized.
> have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
> arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
> scientific controversy.
Your ridiculous bias is good for a chuckle, nothing more. I don't even
feel like pointing out your fallacies here.
>
> Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
> or demigods.
Wrong. God was believed in by all original scientists, and they
thought they were studying God's handiwork. Newton believed that math
was the language with which God wrote the universe.
Even Einstein thought he was studying God's thoughts. You are dead,
flat out, 100 percent wrong.
>
> When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
> hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
> undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
> supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
> first millimeter in this marathon.
Your sad straw-man version?
> pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
> gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.
>
ID is not religious. The designer could quite easily have not been
God.
How thick are your skulls here? Are they jumbo-sized skulls? Why do
you folks keep repeating the same old, tired cliches?
> earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
> good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
> the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
> teachings.
>
How could you bring up such a false analogy? Don't you see that flat
earth is refuted by precise mathematical measurements, whereas ID is
SUPPORTED by the overwhelming complexity of biochemistry? And that
such complexity can be quantified to the tune of 180,000 DNA base
pairs that supposedly "just happened" to arrange themselves "randomly"
into a self-replicating structure "by chance?"
>
> ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
> testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
> more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.
You are demonstrating your own ignorace of biochemistry very plainly.
How do you imagine the first DNA strand "just happened" to arrange
itself into a self-replicating structure? Don't you see that whatever
convoluted explanation you might come up with, fails Occam's razor?
>
> Well, I may laugh like a loon at some of the ideas you present, but I
> keep being provoked.
You are just willfully blinding yourself to the obvious. Luckily,
other ex-atheists such as Antony Flew are more open-minded to evidence
than you are.
geo...@hotmail.com
> > I never said that theory can't be falsified.
>
> Nevertheless, evolution can't be falsified, whether you said so or
> not. Sure, you can falsify specific things, such as claimed
> speciations. But even that level of falsification seems to be lacking.
> For example, I have yet to have anyone here. provide me with an
> example where a claimed speciation has been falsified. Why is that?
> Perhaps because nobody has ever even TRIED to falsify any of the
> claimed speciations? Or is there some other explanation?
You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> However, the point is, that evolution AS A WHOLE cannot be falsified,
> (under any circumstances, even in principle) by a REPLICATABLE
> experiment. Please note the emphasis upon the word "replicatable."
>
> Every legitimate hard science has the ability to potentially be
> falsified by a replicatable experiment. For example, if you suddenly
> found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
> form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
> and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry. Such
> falsification is possible purely because chemistry is mathematically
> precise enough to be thusly falsified.
Well, despite the fact that the theory wouldn't be there in the first
place if that combination was impossible, how about the following? DNA
turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. It is easy to change,
and holds changes easily. It does not, for example, simply back-mutate
every time a change is made, which would make evolution impossible.
That's in the 29+ Evidences. Note that DNA was discovered after
evolution, and this test could have, like your test above, falsified
it, but it didn't.
>
> Evolution, which makes no such precise claims, compares unfavorably to
> chemistry, and to all the hard sciences. It just doesn't bother to
> make any predictions that are precise enough to be falsified by a
> replicatable experiment.
>
> > point is that many fundamental theories of modern cosmology are
> > threatened with falsification and the need for a revised theory.
> > Disney's point is that if they're falsified, cosmologists are going to
> > have to think long and hard about what comes next.
>
> Yes, because the cosmological theoris are mathematically precise
> enough to be in danger of falsification. Unlike evolution, the faith-
> system.
You are implying here that evolution has not been tested. I call
bullshit.
>
>
>
> > Evolution is having no such trouble. It continues to be a
> > productive theory that leads people to scientific and technological
> > progress.
>
> Evolution is not "productive" in the least degree. Nor has it EVER
> given us any technology whatsoever. You simply cannot base any
> technology off of a theory that is so vague and mathematically
> imprecise as evolution.
Except, for example, medicine which saves people's lives, but of
course, that's not evolution, that's just a perfectly normal
phenomenon which happens to be explained by evolution.
>
>
>
> > And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
> > in the wings to replace it.
>
> Of course, ID will do quite nicely as a replacement, once the
> irrational bias toward the unproven "assumption of naturalism" is
> removed.
Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
been done on ID theory, like, ever?
I mean, what possesses you to say this? You must know there isn't any
ID theory, and that its proponents aren't researching it, and that
they can't and won't even answer basic criticisms of it? Do you
honestly feel what you're saying adds up? Do you honestly feel you're,
well, honest?
Greg G.
hersheyh
> > I never said that theory can't be falsified.
>
> Nevertheless, evolution can't be falsified, whether you said so or
> not. Sure, you can falsify specific things, such as claimed
> speciations.
Every aspect of evolution is falsifiable. Being falsifiable does not
mean that it must be falsified. In fact, one would expect that a
theory that *perfectly* explained material reality that *was*
falsifiable *wouldn't* be falsified.
> But even that level of falsification seems to be lacking.
> For example, I have yet to have anyone here. provide me with an
> example where a claimed speciation has been falsified. Why is that?
Because, where there is sufficient evidence to provide a test, the
results have been largely consistent with evolutionary ideas. That
does not mean that *every* example or possibility of a speciation, by
which I presume you mean the order or pattern of historical branching,
event has sufficient evidence to resolve the order of branching. And
it doesn't mean that every hypothesis about the order of branching has
unchallenged. In fact there are quite a few branching points that are
currently unresolved. But those are, by and large, cases where
previous methods of determining branching (morphology, for example)
were already known to be inadequate evidence to convincingly determine
a branch pattern. For example, it was not until sufficient DNA
evidence was accumulated that one could say, with reasonable certainty
that the branching pattern was ((chimp, human) gorilla) rather than
(chimp (human, gorilla)) or (human (chimp, gorilla)).
But, importantly, nothing in the DNA evidence provided any reason to
suspect that the three species were anything but great apes who all
had a common ancestor (along with orangutans, which one maverick --
and weird -- anthropologist still claims, with less than reliable
support is closer to humans than the African great apes).
> Perhaps because nobody has ever even TRIED to falsify any of the
> claimed speciations? Or is there some other explanation?
The explanation that I gave initially. Although it would be quite
possible to observe patterns that would clearly and unequivokably
falsify a pattern of historical common descent (in particular cases,
particular branchings have been 'falsified' in favor of other
branchings when more evidence has been accumulated) the pattern
observed remains one of a pattern of historical branchings, even
though there is no logical or manufacturing reason for doing so in the
absence of actual historical branching. That is, even though a
pattern of historical branchings is "falsifiable" (and easily so), it
is not a pattern that has been "falsified" because it just so happens
to *be* the pattern that nature presents. Patterns that would
represent "functional" rather than historical constraint are,
specifically, not seen.
> However, the point is, that evolution AS A WHOLE cannot be falsified,
> (under any circumstances, even in principle) by a REPLICATABLE
> experiment. Please note the emphasis upon the word "replicatable."
Of course it could be. Because evolution *requires* mutation, if
nature were unable to produce the types of mutations (by this, I mean,
point, deletion, inversion, etc.) required to change genomes, or did
so at a rate that radically differed from that which would produce the
observed differences in organisms, then evolution would be in deep doo
doo. The fact is that all the differences in the genomes of humans
and chimps can be accounted for by neutral drift without the
*necessity* of invoking selection. Selection undoubtedly occurred
and was important for the *few* differences that matter, but not for
most of the observed difference.
Or one could observe that selection did not happen experimentally.
That is, when one changes the environment to strongly favor an
*existing* variant (selection always works on existing variants rather
than imaginary ones) and one observed that, despite its benefit, the
trait always disappears from the population, then natural selection
would have a problem.
> Every legitimate hard science has the ability to potentially be
> falsified by a replicatable experiment. For example, if you suddenly
> found in chem class, that hydrogen will not combine with 2 oxygens to
> form water, under any cicumstance, and you kept REPLICATING this over
> and over again, you would falsify a good bit of chemistry. Such
> falsification is possible purely because chemistry is mathematically
> precise enough to be thusly falsified.
If one subjects a large enough population of bacteria (grown from a
strep sensitive clone) to an environment with strep, one should expect
a certain very small fraction of bacteria to survive. Other
experiments show that mutation to the selectively favored variant was
a random event rather than a teleologically designed one.
> Evolution, which makes no such precise claims, compares unfavorably to
> chemistry, and to all the hard sciences. It just doesn't bother to
> make any predictions that are precise enough to be falsified by a
> replicatable experiment.
If I were to find that your DNA sequence differed from mine by 50%
rather than 0.05%, I would have to conclude that you did not arrive
here by the same mechanism that all other humans did and that you are
unrelated to the rest of us.
>
> > point is that many fundamental theories of modern cosmology are
> > threatened with falsification and the need for a revised theory.
> > Disney's point is that if they're falsified, cosmologists are going to
> > have to think long and hard about what comes next.
>
> Yes, because the cosmological theoris are mathematically precise
> enough to be in danger of falsification. Unlike evolution, the faith-
> system.
Does your skepticism extend to the quite mathematically precise
theories about the age of the earth and subsequent geological strata
or features of the earth?
> > Evolution is having no such trouble. It continues to be a
> > productive theory that leads people to scientific and technological
> > progress.
>
> Evolution is not "productive" in the least degree. Nor has it EVER
> given us any technology whatsoever. You simply cannot base any
> technology off of a theory that is so vague and mathematically
> imprecise as evolution.
Speaking of bull, all of human agriculture is based on the idea of
selection of variants useful to humans. Until recently, of course,
all those variants had to arise by natural random mutation. So what
prevents variants from arising (just like the antibiotic resistance
variants do) and undergoing selection by the natural environment?
> > And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
> > in the wings to replace it.
>
> Of course, ID will do quite nicely as a replacement, once the
> irrational bias toward the unproven "assumption of naturalism" is
> removed.
Oh. Yes. Once you allow the camel's nose (of assuming
supernaturalism) inside the tent, you can start assuming that illness
is due to God's will, that tornados are acts of God, that God wants
you to stone anyone who disagrees with you, that God wanted you to die
of starvation. ID fits into the realm of supernaturalism,
superstition, and willful ignorance quite easily. It isn't
"irrational" to require that science remain wedded to and restricted
to "naturalistic explanation of material nature". That is what makes
science useful.
geo...@hotmail.com
> > Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
> > flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
> > people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
> > that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
> > acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
> > fails to be science.
>
> Ha ha. If you automatically define "naturalism" to be the automatic
> "truth" then you are correct. However, I deny that naturalism is
> automatically true. What say you to that?
He did not say science is truth, and actually, you are correct.
Science is not truth. It is a description of the natural universe; ie.
what we can see. Newton's law of gravity, for example, is not the
truth - it is wrong - but it's still perfect for sending rockets to
space.
>
>
>
> > Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist.
>
> Don't you know that Behe accepts common descent?
I frankly have no idea what Behe accepts any more.
>
> > "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
> > are not science.
>
> They are only "not science" if you define science like this:
> "Science is the study of naturalism, and naturalism only. Even if
> naturalism is false, science still has to study it, and assume
> naturalism to be true, even if it is false, no matter what."
>
> Only with that type of biased definition, can ID be automatically
> defined as non-science.
>
> On the other hand, if you simply define science as the pursuit of
> truth, with no previous biases, such as naturalism, automatically
> built in, then ID does just fine.
>
>
>
> > ID is not even an hypothesis.
>
> Absurd statement. Laughable.
Supply the testable hypothesis of ID then, bimms. You'll be the first.
>
> > treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
> > something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
> > bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution.
>
> FYI: it is a perfectly legit scientific activity, to criticize
> dominant theories. You seem to think that science is a faith system,
> that must not be criticized.
The issue here, bimms, is that ID was claimed to be a scientific
theory, but turned out to be creationist criticisms of evolution in
disguise. That is dishonest. Or do you feel it is not dishonest to say
one thing and do another?
>
> > have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
> > arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
> > scientific controversy.
>
> Your ridiculous bias is good for a chuckle, nothing more. I don't even
> feel like pointing out your fallacies here.
That is really, really close to ad hom, but you don't know what that
is so I'll let it pass...
>
>
>
> > Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
> > or demigods.
>
> Wrong. God was believed in by all original scientists, and they
> thought they were studying God's handiwork. Newton believed that math
> was the language with which God wrote the universe.
>
> Even Einstein thought he was studying God's thoughts. You are dead,
> flat out, 100 percent wrong.
Er, bimms, how exactly does this answer the point? None of those
scientists were gods.
>
>
>
> > When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
> > hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
> > undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
> > supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
> > first millimeter in this marathon.
>
> Your sad straw-man version?
Well, I'd hate to make a strawman argument, so kindly show me the real
ID theory.
>
> > pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
> > gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.
>
> ID is not religious. The designer could quite easily have not been
> God.
>
> How thick are your skulls here? Are they jumbo-sized skulls? Why do
> you folks keep repeating the same old, tired cliches?
Aside from the bundles of evidence that ID is creationism in disguise,
didn't you earlier say that ID requires the supernatural? How is that
different from religious?
>
> > earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
> > good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
> > the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
> > teachings.
>
> How could you bring up such a false analogy? Don't you see that flat
> earth is refuted by precise mathematical measurements, whereas ID is
> SUPPORTED by the overwhelming complexity of biochemistry?
How?
That's a serious question.
> And that
> such complexity can be quantified to the tune of 180,000 DNA base
> pairs that supposedly "just happened" to arrange themselves "randomly"
> into a self-replicating structure "by chance?"
Bollocks. Even if that did happen, what the heck is ID's prediction?
An alien did it? I mean, what else can you possibly say?
Feel free to stop me if you feel this is a strawman version of ID. I'd
be interested to see what it can really say.
>
>
>
> > ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
> > testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
> > more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.
>
> You are demonstrating your own ignorace of biochemistry very plainly.
> How do you imagine the first DNA strand "just happened" to arrange
> itself into a self-replicating structure? Don't you see that whatever
> convoluted explanation you might come up with, fails Occam's razor?
Yikes, I haven't seen this argument (listed in the Index to
Creationist Claims) before. I can't answer it any more eloquently than
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA240.html .
hersheyh
> > Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
> > flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
> > people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
> > that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
> > acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
> > fails to be science.
>
> Ha ha. If you automatically define "naturalism" to be the automatic
> "truth" then you are correct.
I only require "natural explanation" in science. What you do with
your religious beliefs is up to you.
> However, I deny that naturalism is
> automatically true. What say you to that?
You can believe that there are aliens waiting for you behind comet
Tuttle for all I care. I just won't let you around sharp knives or
poison. Just so long as you don't think you are doing is science.
> > Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist.
>
> Don't you know that Behe accepts common descent?
Yes. That does not make him an "evolutionary" scientist.
> > "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
> > are not science.
>
> They are only "not science" if you define science like this:
> "Science is the study of naturalism, and naturalism only. Even if
> naturalism is false, science still has to study it, and assume
> naturalism to be true, even if it is false, no matter what."
Science is the study of the material world and how it works. If you
regard the material world as "naturalism", then you are right.
Science restricts its explanations to natural explanation because only
natural explanations can be tested by empirical observation.
Explanations that cannot be tested are of no interest to science, even
if they can explain *anything*. In fact, most supernatural
explanations can explain *anything*, so they are of no interest to
science, whether or not they are 'true' in some sense.
> Only with that type of biased definition, can ID be automatically
> defined as non-science.
>
> On the other hand, if you simply define science as the pursuit of
> truth, with no previous biases, such as naturalism, automatically
> built in, then ID does just fine.
No it doesn't. It doesn't give any explanation more useful than
GODONEIT.
> > ID is not even an hypothesis.
>
> Absurd statement. Laughable.
So. Give me a testable ID hypothesis.
>
> > treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
> > something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
> > bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution.
>
> FYI: it is a perfectly legit scientific activity, to criticize
> dominant theories. You seem to think that science is a faith system,
> that must not be criticized.
You can express your religious beliefs all you want. So can the good
Rev. Phelps, although people are trying to restrict his expression of
his religious beliefs. You can't claim that they are scientifically
valid.
> > have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
> > arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
> > scientific controversy.
>
> Your ridiculous bias is good for a chuckle, nothing more. I don't even
> feel like pointing out your fallacies here.
>
>
>
> > Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
> > or demigods.
>
> Wrong.
Read what I wrote.
> God was believed in by all original scientists, and they
> thought they were studying God's handiwork. Newton believed that math
> was the language with which God wrote the universe.
>
> Even Einstein thought he was studying God's thoughts. You are dead,
> flat out, 100 percent wrong.
What I wrote was that the people *doing* the science were not demigods
or gods, but mere humans. Their reason for doing science is
irrelevant if the science is good.
> > When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
> > hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
> > undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
> > supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
> > first millimeter in this marathon.
>
> Your sad straw-man version?
>
> > pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
> > gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.
>
> ID is not religious. The designer could quite easily have not been
> God.
It must be a supernatural being at some point in the chain of
theologic that is ID.
> How thick are your skulls here? Are they jumbo-sized skulls? Why do
> you folks keep repeating the same old, tired cliches?
>
> > earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
> > good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
> > the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
> > teachings.
>
> How could you bring up such a false analogy? Don't you see that flat
> earth is refuted by precise mathematical measurements, whereas ID is
> SUPPORTED by the overwhelming complexity of biochemistry?
ID is not supported by complexity.
> And that
> such complexity can be quantified to the tune of 180,000 DNA base
> pairs that supposedly "just happened" to arrange themselves "randomly"
> into a self-replicating structure "by chance?"
Who says that "chance" was the only relevant feature? Talking about
strawmen, perhaps you need to look up the definition of "selection".
> > ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
> > testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
> > more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.
>
> You are demonstrating your own ignorace of biochemistry very plainly.
> How do you imagine the first DNA strand "just happened" to arrange
> itself into a self-replicating structure? Don't you see that whatever
> convoluted explanation you might come up with, fails Occam's razor?
And invoking a supernatural entity doesn't fail the razor? The
chemical and physical properties of DNA, particularly its hydrogen
bonding features, help to arrange DNA into a self-replicating
structure. But DNA, according to most hypotheses about abiogenesis is
somewhat far along the path to man.
bi...@juno.com
> You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
> properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
> see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
> papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
> you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
> facts, because that'd be quite rude.
All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.
As for your demand that I read every paper ever written before my
doubts are valid. If nobody could voice their doubts without reading
every paper ever written, the result would be that science would never
be challenged. As I hope you know, science is only healthy when it is
CONSTANTLY being challenged.
>
> Well, despite the fact that the theory wouldn't be there in the first
> place if that combination was impossible, how about the following? DNA
> turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. It is easy to change,
> and holds changes easily. It does not, for example, simply back-mutate
> every time a change is made, which would make evolution impossible.
> That's in the 29+ Evidences. Note that DNA was discovered after
> evolution, and this test could have, like your test above, falsified
> it, but it didn't.
Under that hypothetical scenario, what if DNA were to only back-mutate
under certain conditions? Then a single case, or even multiple cases,
of DNA back-mutation would not truly falsify evolution.
For this proposed falsifier to work, You would have to prove that DNA
mutations ALWAYS back-mutate, (and you would have to do this in
standard replication experiments) to falsify evolution. But how could
you do that, even in principle? How could you prove that DNA always
back-mutates? You can't, even in principle.... not even in this
parallel universe that you are hypothesizing. Thus, evolution could
continue as a faith-based theory, even if we had discovered back then
that DNA mutations USUALLY back-mutate.
However, you definitely raise a very good point. It may be that, when
a new speciation is about to occur, DNA simply back-mutates and
prevents the reproductively isolated speciation. That may be why
(reproductively isolated) speciation observations are so rare.....
indeed, non-existent from a falsificationalist perspective.
>
> You are implying here that evolution has not been tested. I call
> bullshit.
>
Well, fine. Then provide me with a single instance where a claimed
speciation has been falsified. If you can't do that, then at least
give me an example where it was at least TRIED! Otherwise, you are
just blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors.
>
> Except, for example, medicine which saves people's lives, but of
> course, that's not evolution, that's just a perfectly normal
> phenomenon which happens to be explained by evolution.
It is not evolution. It is variation of bacterial resistance (to
antibiotics) WITHIN SPECIES.
How many times to I have to keep repeating that variation WITHIN
species is not the same as SPECIATION? And speciation is the only
point of debate?
Are the new bacterial strains reproductively isolated from the old
strains? If not, they are not a new species. Period.
>
> Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
> list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
> evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
> been done on ID theory, like, ever?
ID is the idea that certain biological structures are useless unless
they appear fully formed, with all parts intact and fully functional.
We "predict" that no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route will be
discovered, to explain how the various IC structures came into being.
We are not convinced by the attempts of evolutionists to propose
highly complex, convoluted "parallel evolution" theories, since they
not only fail Occam's razor, but produce more problems than they
solve. I encourage you to read Behe's new book, in which he counter-
refutes the good faith efforts of evolutionists to shore up their
crumbling theory.
>
> I mean, what possesses you to say this? You must know there isn't any
> ID theory, and that its proponents aren't researching it, and that
> they can't and won't even answer basic criticisms of it? Do you
> honestly feel what you're saying adds up? Do you honestly feel you're,
> well, honest?
Let me ask you. Have you read Behe's counter-refutations of the
"parallel evolution" claims against his IC structures?
Shane
>>
>> You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
>> properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
>> see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
>> papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
>> you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
>> facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
> falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
Yes. It was claimed that maggots arose from rotting meat. This theory
was falsified by Lois Pastuer, and now no-one believes it any more.
FYI: That is what happens to falsified theories, they are thrown out.
Thanks for your continued support for the current consensus of how
speciation occurs, which, as you so frequently and vehemently point
out, has not been falsified, even though it can be.
> If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
> evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.
Just the opposite really. If they continued to accept speciation in
spite of it being falsified, then they would be guilty of what you
claim.
Thanks for your continued support that, by and large, speciation is
yet to be falsified.
[...]
geo...@hotmail.com
> > You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
> > properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
> > see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
> > papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
> > you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
> > facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
> falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
>
> If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
> evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.
>
> As for your demand that I read every paper ever written before my
> doubts are valid. If nobody could voice their doubts without reading
> every paper ever written, the result would be that science would never
> be challenged. As I hope you know, science is only healthy when it is
> CONSTANTLY being challenged.
Which it is. Bimms, if you want some credibility on this, show us an
example of scientists not doing their work properly. I'll settle for
one.
>
>
>
> > Well, despite the fact that the theory wouldn't be there in the first
> > place if that combination was impossible, how about the following? DNA
> > turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. It is easy to change,
> > and holds changes easily. It does not, for example, simply back-mutate
> > every time a change is made, which would make evolution impossible.
> > That's in the 29+ Evidences. Note that DNA was discovered after
> > evolution, and this test could have, like your test above, falsified
> > it, but it didn't.
>
> Under that hypothetical scenario, what if DNA were to only back-mutate
> under certain conditions? Then a single case, or even multiple cases,
> of DNA back-mutation would not truly falsify evolution.
Um... what? Then we check to see if those conditions occur in the
wild? What on earth has this to do with anything?
>
> For this proposed falsifier to work, You would have to prove that DNA
> mutations ALWAYS back-mutate, (and you would have to do this in
> standard replication experiments) to falsify evolution. But how could
> you do that, even in principle? How could you prove that DNA always
> back-mutates? You can't, even in principle.... not even in this
> parallel universe that you are hypothesizing. Thus, evolution could
> continue as a faith-based theory, even if we had discovered back then
> that DNA mutations USUALLY back-mutate.
What! This makes no sense to me. You're saying if something happens
which makes evolution unfalsifiable, then it's unfalsifiable??
If scientists had discovered that mutations normally back-mutate, they
would be at a loss to explain it with evolution theory! That's
falsification.
>
> However, you definitely raise a very good point. It may be that, when
> a new speciation is about to occur, DNA simply back-mutates and
> prevents the reproductively isolated speciation. That may be why
> (reproductively isolated) speciation observations are so rare.....
> indeed, non-existent from a falsificationalist perspective.
We know why they are rare. Because evolution takes bloody ages.
>
>
>
> > You are implying here that evolution has not been tested. I call
> > bullshit.
>
> Well, fine. Then provide me with a single instance where a claimed
> speciation has been falsified. If you can't do that, then at least
> give me an example where it was at least TRIED! Otherwise, you are
> just blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors.
What does it mean to falsify a speciation? Do you actually know? A
theory OF speciation can be falsified, but a speciation is something
that happens. It's an event. How do you falsify an event?
>
>
>
> > Except, for example, medicine which saves people's lives, but of
> > course, that's not evolution, that's just a perfectly normal
> > phenomenon which happens to be explained by evolution.
>
> It is not evolution. It is variation of bacterial resistance (to
> antibiotics) WITHIN SPECIES.
>
> How many times to I have to keep repeating that variation WITHIN
> species is not the same as SPECIATION? And speciation is the only
> point of debate?
>
> Are the new bacterial strains reproductively isolated from the old
> strains? If not, they are not a new species. Period.
You perhaps didn't detect my sarcastic tone. The point is, the same
principle underlies evolution theory as well.
>
>
>
> > Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
> > list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
> > evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
> > been done on ID theory, like, ever?
>
> ID is the idea that certain biological structures are useless unless
> they appear fully formed, with all parts intact and fully functional.
Which Behe has been unable to defend, and which has been rebutted so
many times it's not funny. Even I can do it. Did you know that the
idea of IC requires people to simply pretend that several evolutionary
mechanisms don't exist, in order to claim that evolution isn't capable
of producing IC?
> We "predict" that no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route will be
> discovered, to explain how the various IC structures came into being.
>
Well, it's wrong, then. You can go home now.
But I'm gonna venture my own theory. I predict, based on my knowledge
of fairies, that no one will ever be able to detect an electron in two
places at once, because fairies are tricky and like to decieve.
> We are not convinced by the attempts of evolutionists
I wonder why. Couldn't be to do with Christianity, could it?
> to propose
> highly complex, convoluted "parallel evolution" theories, since they
> not only fail Occam's razor, but produce more problems than they
> solve.
I don't know what you mean by this, but what's wrong with them?
> I encourage you to read Behe's new book, in which he counter-
> refutes the good faith efforts of evolutionists to shore up their
> crumbling theory.
The only crumbling I've seen is of Behe's new book under the glare of
a hundred pro-scientists.
>
>
>
> > I mean, what possesses you to say this? You must know there isn't any
> > ID theory, and that its proponents aren't researching it, and that
> > they can't and won't even answer basic criticisms of it? Do you
> > honestly feel what you're saying adds up? Do you honestly feel you're,
> > well, honest?
>
> Let me ask you. Have you read Behe's counter-refutations of the
> "parallel evolution" claims against his IC structures?
If I have, I can't recall them.
SeppoP
>> You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
>> properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
>> see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
>> papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
>> you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
>> facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
> falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
I don't think you have the slightest clue about what "falsification" means.
<brainless blather mercifully amputated>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Ritsjoena
> > Not *all* cosmologists probably think that the BB is *fatally*
> > flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
> > people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
> > that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
> > acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
> > fails to be science.
>
> Ha ha. If you automatically define "naturalism" to be the automatic
> "truth" then you are correct. However, I deny that naturalism is
> automatically true. What say you to that?
>
Science studies what it can study under its rules. In short: things
that can be tested. At the moment this can only be done for the things
we can observe directly or indirectly. I.e what falls under
naturalism. So the naturalism part is only a consequence of the rules
not a requirement.
At the moment science requires that at least part of the world around
us is a material world. It does nothing with supernatural things (if
they exist). It does not require them, it does not forbid them. It
does make them unlikely, but that is just a consequence, not an
assumption. Even if these exist science serves its purpose: it tells
us what happens when there is no supernatural interaction with the
material world.
As soon as a method is found to study supernatural (i.e. non material)
phenomena under science rules (if these phenomena exist and if such a
method can be found) science will extent its field to it directly.
>
>
> > Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist.
>
> Don't you know that Behe accepts common descent?
>
> > "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
> > are not science.
>
> They are only "not science" if you define science like this:
> "Science is the study of naturalism, and naturalism only. Even if
> naturalism is false, science still has to study it, and assume
> naturalism to be true, even if it is false, no matter what."
>
> Only with that type of biased definition, can ID be automatically
> defined as non-science.
>
> On the other hand, if you simply define science as the pursuit of
> truth, with no previous biases, such as naturalism, automatically
> built in, then ID does just fine.
ID is rejected because it does not give a testable theory. Sometimes
ID'ers give some suggestions of things that they think are part of ID
and that can be tested. These things are tested against available data
and are falsified.
> > ID is not even an hypothesis.
>
> Absurd statement. Laughable.
Please proof us wrong instead of telling us that we are wrong. If it
is a misconception (it lives among many people) save us by giving us
the theory so it can be tested.
>
> > treat ID as if it were science and have gone on to promoting instead
> > something which is nothing more than rehashed (and almost entirely
> > bogus) old time religious creationist criticisms of evolution.
>
> FYI: it is a perfectly legit scientific activity, to criticize
> dominant theories. You seem to think that science is a faith system,
> that must not be criticized.
The criticism is not the problem.
One problem is that they try to replace evolution by their own
untestable theory. You don't have to provide an alternative to
ventilate criticism.
The second problem is that they keep repeating the same criticism
again and again. All this criticism has been refuted. I.e. evolution
survived it. So sticking to it does not help anymore. Come with
something new, please.
>
> > have descended to "teach the controversy" using old tired creationist
> > arguments and arguments from ignorance as if they represented *real*
> > scientific controversy.
>
> Your ridiculous bias is good for a chuckle, nothing more. I don't even
> feel like pointing out your fallacies here.
Please, show us (ignorant fools) what is wrong with this.
> > Science is a human and humanistic endeavor, not something done by gods
> > or demigods.
>
> Wrong. God was believed in by all original scientists, and they
> thought they were studying God's handiwork. Newton believed that math
> was the language with which God wrote the universe.
>
> Even Einstein thought he was studying God's thoughts. You are dead,
> flat out, 100 percent wrong.
Uhm, he said that the scientists are human. He did not say that the
believe in god did not play a part in it. So there seems to be some
kind of misunderstanding here.
> > When (really if) ID ever comes up with a scientific theory or even
> > hypotheses and actually finds supporting evidence, it will have to
> > undergo this slow human process if it is going to successfully
> > supplant current evolutionary theory. So far ID hasn't even gone the
> > first millimeter in this marathon.
>
> Your sad straw-man version?
>
> > pseudoscience you love best because they recognize it as religion
> > gussied up as pseudoscience and keep pointing out that basic failure.
>
> ID is not religious. The designer could quite easily have not been
> God.
>
> How thick are your skulls here? Are they jumbo-sized skulls? Why do
> you folks keep repeating the same old, tired cliches?
Why do you?
>
> > earth is not the center of the universe. Not that there aren't some
> > good Christians who wouldn't be happy to teach the 'controversy' in
> > the hopes that flat-earthism will supplant the Devil's spherical
> > teachings.
>
> How could you bring up such a false analogy? Don't you see that flat
> earth is refuted by precise mathematical measurements, whereas ID is
> SUPPORTED by the overwhelming complexity of biochemistry? And that
For example? I have seen the evidence for evolution, but not for ID.
> such complexity can be quantified to the tune of 180,000 DNA base
> pairs that supposedly "just happened" to arrange themselves "randomly"
> into a self-replicating structure "by chance?"
Who ever claimed that that happened by chance? Certainly not
evolution.
> > ID is NOT a scientific theory. ID goes out of its way to not make any
> > testable statements. It is empty-headed argument from ignorance. The
> > more ignorant one is, the more evidence there is for ID.
>
> You are demonstrating your own ignorace of biochemistry very plainly.
> How do you imagine the first DNA strand "just happened" to arrange
What do you mean by "just happened"? The normal interpretation does
not correspond with current (candidate) theories.
> itself into a self-replicating structure? Don't you see that whatever
> convoluted explanation you might come up with, fails Occam's razor?
Why is this automatically so? What is the simplest explanation in
terms of assumptions) that explains all phenomena under view and that
is able to make testable predictions? Certainly not what I have seen
from creationism or ID.
Furthermore Ockham's razor is a (very good) rule of thumb, not a rule
of science. You need observations to really distinguish theories.
Ritsjoena
> > You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
> > properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
> > see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
> > papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
> > you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
> > facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
> falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
Uhm, if speciation is falsified every theory that predicts speciation
to occur would be false. Now is that not really a problem, but it
would be a spectaculair happening.
Science does not require theories to be falsified. It requires
theories to be not falsified. No matter how hard scientists try. And
trust me they do try to falsify.
> If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
> evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.
Philosophically speaking every assumption is based on faith. My
assumption that I can reason with you is a leap of faith. My
assumption is based on what I know about people and what I read in
this thread. So you could call it an educated assumption, but still it
is a leap of faith.
Yes, in that sense every scientific theory is based on faith. An
"educated" faith.
It differs from faith systems like religion and ID in that once the
evidence proofs the assumptions wrong, scientists loose their faith in
it and discard it. And this is an extremely important difference.
> As for your demand that I read every paper ever written before my
> doubts are valid. If nobody could voice their doubts without reading
> every paper ever written, the result would be that science would never
> be challenged. As I hope you know, science is only healthy when it is
> CONSTANTLY being challenged.
As I said in my previous post: the challenge is not the problem. The
assumptions, conclusions, methods and motivations of the challenger
are (in case of creationism and ID).
How do you know? I do agree that there might be examples for which is
the case. But how do you know that this is the case for ALL cases. Can
I conclude that you at least agree with the natural selection part of
evolution theory? If not, can you explain what happens in this
example?
Mutations allow new variations to arise that were not available in the
original population and that could not be formed by mixing of the
original genetic information.
>
> How many times to I have to keep repeating that variation WITHIN
> species is not the same as SPECIATION? And speciation is the only
> point of debate?
Who said that variation is speciation? I've only seen claims in which
variation plays a role in the process of speciation, not that it is
speciation. (I do remember some formulations which can be
misinterpreted.
Different selection rules between two populations will lead to
differences between these populations. In combination with mutations
these differences can grow even further and become more than just
variations. What (or why) prevents these differences to grow beyond
the speciation boundary. (i.e. become so big speciation occurs)
>
> Are the new bacterial strains reproductively isolated from the old
> strains? If not, they are not a new species. Period.
>
>
>
> > Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
> > list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
> > evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
> > been done on ID theory, like, ever?
>
> ID is the idea that certain biological structures are useless unless
> they appear fully formed, with all parts intact and fully functional.
> We "predict" that no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route will be
> discovered, to explain how the various IC structures came into being.
>
As I understand it this is just part of the claims made by ID. Not the
complete theory.
> We are not convinced by the attempts of evolutionists to propose
> highly complex, convoluted "parallel evolution" theories, since they
> not only fail Occam's razor, but produce more problems than they
Ockham's razor is a rule of tumb, not a rule of science. As long as
the theory works it is correct. As long as it is the simplest (based
on its assumptions, not on the structure of the theory!!) that works
it is the preferred theory according to Ockham.
By the way, are you sure they fail the razor? Can you show why? I'm
not that convinced.
That it gives rise to more problems than it solves is not something to
be liked, but not proof of it being wrong either.
hersheyh
> > You seem to be claiming that scientists are not doing their job
> > properly. Please could you focus this at someone specific, so we can
> > see who you intend to accuse? You must obviously have read all these
> > papers carefully to be able to conclude this, after all. I'm sure
> > you're not making these sweeping statements without checking your
> > facts, because that'd be quite rude.
>
> All I ask for is a single instance where a claimed speciation was
> falsified. Has this ever occurred? EVER?
What you really want is whether or not speciation events are ever
*tested* empirically to see if a particular hypothesis of relatedness
(are humans more closely related to chimps or to gorillas and thus
have a more recent ancestor with which group?) or a particular
mechanism of speciation (is the method of reproductive isolation due
to chromosomal rearrangements or is it due to autopolyploidy?) is or
is not consistent with the available empirical evidence.
Clearly, the hypothesis that humans and chimps are more closely
related (and thus have a more recent common ancestor) has become more
supported than the alternative hypothesis that humans are more closely
related to gorillas, so that means that the latter hypothesis has been
rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. The idea that humans were
poofed into existence from clay by a supernatural agent has no
supporting empirical evidence at all: humanoids have changed form over
time even after separation from the chimp lineage and clay is a poor
material for making humans.
A number of wild plant species appear to be due to autopolyploidy from
hybridization of other wild plant species. Experimentally, one can
produce autopolyploids in the lab and the results are consistent with
the idea that these apparently autopolyploid species (defined as
reproductively isolated from both parent species) are indeed produced
by that mechanism. It is known that multiple translocations and
inversions can produce hybrid sterility and thus be a reproductively
isolating mechanism. And the evidence is that this is what explains
the mule, which means that it explains the mechanism of speciation
that differentiates the horse from the donkey.
> If not, then I can make the claim that scientists are treating
> evolution EXACTLY like a faith system. EXACTLY.
Science does not require that an hypothesis be "falsified". It
requires that it be "falsifiable". In fact, the more 'true' a natural
explanation is, the more likely it is to only be rarely "falsified",
despite continuous and continuing attempts to "test" the hypothesis
with "falsifiable" hypotheses.
> As for your demand that I read every paper ever written before my
> doubts are valid. If nobody could voice their doubts without reading
> every paper ever written, the result would be that science would never
> be challenged. As I hope you know, science is only healthy when it is
> CONSTANTLY being challenged.
Each new analysis of genes and DNA sequences represents a challenge to
currently held ideas. In fact, a number of surprises have arisen in
the analysis of organisms where morphology is a poor source of
differentiating features. In a group such as "fungi", it is
reasonably clear that there may be several independently evolved
groups that have historically been tossed into this category. And
because there can be a disconnect between morphology and sequence, we
can find such 'surprises' as that the deep sea vent
"worms" (morphology) are actually modified "clams" (DNA sequence).
> > Well, despite the fact that the theory wouldn't be there in the first
> > place if that combination was impossible, how about the following? DNA
> > turns out to be perfectly suited for evolution. It is easy to change,
> > and holds changes easily. It does not, for example, simply back-mutate
> > every time a change is made, which would make evolution impossible.
> > That's in the 29+ Evidences. Note that DNA was discovered after
> > evolution, and this test could have, like your test above, falsified
> > it, but it didn't.
>
> Under that hypothetical scenario, what if DNA were to only back-mutate
> under certain conditions? Then a single case, or even multiple cases,
> of DNA back-mutation would not truly falsify evolution.
The rate of back-mutation is, typically, no different from the rate of
forward-mutations of the same type and is independent of the need for
that back mutation.
> For this proposed falsifier to work, You would have to prove that DNA
> mutations ALWAYS back-mutate, (and you would have to do this in
> standard replication experiments) to falsify evolution. But how could
> you do that, even in principle? How could you prove that DNA always
> back-mutates? You can't, even in principle.... not even in this
> parallel universe that you are hypothesizing. Thus, evolution could
> continue as a faith-based theory, even if we had discovered back then
> that DNA mutations USUALLY back-mutate.
We most certainly can test for reversion, aka back-mutation. And have
clearly demonstrated that reversion, just like forward mutation, *when
it can occur*, does so independently of the need for that reversion.
Moreover, we know a lot about the *rates* of certain kinds of
mutations (reversions are typically specific mutations) and many other
details that can produce "phenotypic reversion". Point mutation
reversions of point forward mutations are probably what you are
thinking of, and those typically are 'rarer' than the forward mutation
because, often, any forward point mutation that knocks out gene
function will produce the phenotypic effect. But only *specific*
reversion point mutations (which need not be at the same site) can
restore functionality to the protein.
OTOH, forward large *deletion* mutations (frameshifts and triplets are
different) are unrevertable because there is generally no mechanism
that can replace that which no longer exists. When phenotypic
reversion of a deletion mutation occurs, it is typically due to
another gene present in the organism acquiring a new functionality, as
in the case of ebg acquiring the ability to digest lactose. But,
clearly, in the case of a deletion mutation, there generally is no
back mutation of DNA in the sense of restoring the specific deleted
gene in any time frame and to restoring *phenotype* in an
experimentally observable time frame is often also impossible. But
not always. And the mechanisms that *can* produce phenotypic
reversion when the original gene is deleted shows us how evolution
works to produce new function.
And I haven't even discussed the fact that there can be secondary
mutations that can be 'selected' for (enhancers and suppressors) that
can modify an effect and produce an irreducibly complex correction to
an original mutation.
> However, you definitely raise a very good point. It may be that, when
> a new speciation is about to occur, DNA simply back-mutates and
> prevents the reproductively isolated speciation. That may be why
> (reproductively isolated) speciation observations are so rare.....
> indeed, non-existent from a falsificationalist perspective.
The above is bullshit pseudojargon by someone who doesn't have a clue
as to what they are talking about. Why don't you learn a tiny little
bit about genetics before you spew out nonsense StarTrek science talk?
> > You are implying here that evolution has not been tested. I call
> > bullshit.
>
> Well, fine. Then provide me with a single instance where a claimed
> speciation has been falsified. If you can't do that, then at least
> give me an example where it was at least TRIED! Otherwise, you are
> just blowing smoke. Smoke and mirrors.
Again, this has been and continues to be done daily. Every time a
scientist sequences DNA of a gene or a genome, he is testing the
existing pattern of descent. By and large scientists go out of their
way to do this testing on groups or organisms where the past
methodology for determining patterns of descent (morphology) is
problematic because either there are few points of morphology to look
at or because the physics of the environment can produce analogy
rather than homology. And surprises were found that required either
changing the pattern of descent or an explicit recognition that the
categorization is in some ways incorrect. For example, birds are not,
as most taxonomies would show, a separate co-equal group with reptiles
(I will mention that this taxonomy works well when one is only
considering currently living organisms, which is why it has not been
replaced), but are instead a highly derived reptile. But, then, so
are mammals, but via a different pathway.
> > Except, for example, medicine which saves people's lives, but of
> > course, that's not evolution, that's just a perfectly normal
> > phenomenon which happens to be explained by evolution.
>
> It is not evolution. It is variation of bacterial resistance (to
> antibiotics) WITHIN SPECIES.
>
> How many times to I have to keep repeating that variation WITHIN
> species is not the same as SPECIATION? And speciation is the only
> point of debate?
And clearly there is enough variation available within species to
produce new species by anagenesis (see the variation in dogs) if there
is a changing environment that favors, say, miniaturization, as occurs
to large species on islands. But I agree that *speciation* often
arises by neutral drift in isolated populations or by hybrid
dysgenesis driving a reproductively isolating mechanism. Both are
more likely to occur on "ecological islands".
> Are the new bacterial strains reproductively isolated from the old
> strains? If not, they are not a new species. Period.
Bacteria do not reproduce in the sense that humans do. They do engage
in exchange of genetic information, but by quite different mechanisms
than the meiotic cycle and the exchange is not limited to just their
'species' but can range across a variable range of related 'species'
depending on the vector of exchange. Determining 'species' in
bacteria is far more difficult than doing so in insects. In fact,
'species' determination is more of a *quantitative* analysis (how much
is this bacteria like E. coli rather than other Enterobacters) rather
than a *qualitative* one.
> > Bollocks! What is ID theory, bimms? You can't even tell us that, or
> > list any testable predictions, and you reckon that's going to replace
> > evolution and produce wonderful technologies? How much research has
> > been done on ID theory, like, ever?
>
> ID is the idea that certain biological structures are useless unless
> they appear fully formed, with all parts intact and fully functional.
> We "predict" that no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route will be
> discovered, to explain how the various IC structures came into being.
So? How do you test that "no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route"
will *ever* be discovered? At best all you can do is state that there
is "no viable gradualistic-evolutionary route" that is *currently*
known to be possible. And most of the time, ID doesn't even have
that; most of the time it has to declare that possible proposed
gradualistic-evolutionary mechanisms won't work, usually by louder and
louder assertion. All you idea does is to make ID a "garbage" or
"fall-back" theory; whenever you choose not to look any further than
your current level of ignorance, you can attribute the observed result
to an unspecified something doing something at some time and place to
produce by some unspecified mechanism whatever exists. *That* (all
those somethings and unspecifieds) is the essence of an untestable
theory that makes no testable predictions.
What prediction does ID make that is *independent* of the claim that
"evolution could not produce this"? Does ID predict that the genes of
particular features would all be the same in organisms that have it
(as would be the case if a designer put in the same genes in all
organisms a mere 6000 years ago)? Does ID predict that all the
sequence differences in, say, cytochrome c or eubacterial flagella, in
different organisms represent *functionally important* differences, as
if an artisan had produced them rather than differences that produce a
pattern of historical descent? Or does ID predict that there should
be no *common* or *consistent* pattern of differences? Does ID
predict that all the genes of particular features would have no
moieties that have similarity to any other moiety or structure in any
other gene in that or related organisms? And does ID only apply to
features that are IC (if you could actually demonstrate that)?
Curious minds want a testable prediction, not an ID which is nothing
but a fall-back based on current ignorance.
> We are not convinced by the attempts of evolutionists to propose
> highly complex, convoluted "parallel evolution" theories, since they
> not only fail Occam's razor, but produce more problems than they
> solve. I encourage you to read Behe's new book, in which he counter-
> refutes the good faith efforts of evolutionists to shore up their
> crumbling theory.
Behe's math is in complete disagreement with the math of people who
actually study these things. I go with the experts rather than the
amateur. There is absolutely no problem in, for example, generating
the human and chimp genomes from a common ancestor in the time
available without even the need to invoke selection (except as a
conservative force). Creationists (and Behe) radically exaggerate the
number of changes needed to produce evolutionary change.
> > I mean, what possesses you to say this? You must know there isn't any
> > ID theory, and that its proponents aren't researching it, and that
> > they can't and won't even answer basic criticisms of it? Do you
> > honestly feel what you're saying adds up? Do you honestly feel you're,
> > well, honest?
>
> Let me ask you. Have you read Behe's counter-refutations of the
> "parallel evolution" claims against his IC structures?
I may go to the library and get it sometime, but surely you could also
read the reviews of his book by *real* scientists. They regard his
math as laughably simplistic and wrong.
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
>>
>> I never said that theory can't be falsified.
>
>Nevertheless, evolution can't be falsified, whether you said so or
>not. Sure, you can falsify specific things, such as claimed
>speciations. But even that level of falsification seems to be lacking.
>For example, I have yet to have anyone here. provide me with an
>example where a claimed speciation has been falsified. Why is that?
>Perhaps because nobody has ever even TRIED to falsify any of the
>claimed speciations? Or is there some other explanation?
Your memory is defective. You were once offered Senecio eboracensis. And
surely recreating species from their putative parents counts as a
potentially falsifying test of a speciation event.
However the reason why people are less than interested in meeting your
request for attempted falsifications is that you insist on trying to
define away observed speciation events by using a straw man definition
of a species in which finches, buntings and sparrows are a single
species. (Look up Fringilla, Emberiza and Passer at
http://www.bird-hybrids.com)
>
>However, the point is, that evolution AS A WHOLE cannot be falsified,
>(under any circumstances, even in principle) by a REPLICATABLE
>experiment. Please note the emphasis upon the word "replicatable."
The theory of evolution predicts that genome contents, i.e. the sets of
genes present in different genomes, will display a nested hierarchy
correlated with that we have inferred from other data. We are currently
in the process of identifying the genome contents of many organisms.
If we were to find that genomes didn't form a nested hierarchy, or that
the hierarchy bore no resemblance to that inferred from other data, then
the theory of evolution would be falsified.
That was Nicola/s's shtick.
There are applications of evolution. For example, the use of synthetic
wheats and Brassicas to widen the gene pool of crop plants. For example,
the management of antibiotic use. For example the choice of candidate
drugs for treatment of microsporidial and mesomycetozoan infections.
>
>
>>
>> And even if it were to be falsified, no theory currently waits
>> in the wings to replace it.
>
>Of course, ID will do quite nicely as a replacement, once the
>irrational bias toward the unproven "assumption of naturalism" is
>removed.
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
geo...@hotmail.com writes
>> Wrong. God was believed in by all original scientists, and they
>> thought they were studying God's handiwork. Newton believed that math
>> was the language with which God wrote the universe.
>>
>> Even Einstein thought he was studying God's thoughts. You are dead,
>> flat out, 100 percent wrong.
>
>Er, bimms, how exactly does this answer the point? None of those
>scientists were gods.
>
Einstein is generally accounted a pantheist or panentheist, but I don't
understand how his views differed from atheism.
Einstein's references to God were metaphorical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
--
alias Ernest Major
AC
I think, in practice, pantheists, atheists and agnostics aren't all that far
apart. However, technically, pantheists do sort of accept some sort of
something, spirit of nature, or whatever, but reject the idea of a personal
god.
Sadly, most Creationists don't have the perception to comprehend something
as subtle and nuanced as Einstein's beliefs, and thus completely
misrepresent him (as he bemoaned). Then again, these are the sorts of
people who claim the US is a religious state because the words "In the year
of our Lord" appears in the US Constitution. If God is even used as a
legalism or in a metaphorical sense, they jump all over it.
In short, they are very silly people.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Glenn
> On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 3:59 pm, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> > > Numerous <numer...@addr.invalid> writes:
> > > > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:35:35 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
> > > > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > > >>The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
> > > >>saying this.
> > > > Of course not. You never see ID proponents say ID is in trouble
> > > > either, do you?
>
> > >The point is that we *do* see cosmologists and physicists
> > > saying that Big Bang theory is in trouble.
>
> > Are they *all* saying this, or just the "real" ones? Are you claiming
> > a consensus of cosmologists and physicists, of the actual BB theory
> > being "in trouble"?
>
> flawed. And whether or not they do, both sides are represented by
> people doing real, valid, peer-reviewed and publishable science *in
> that field*. Science does not *require* consensus. It does require
> acceptance of the methods of scientific inquiry. That is where ID
> fails to be science.
In your zeal to appear as if your lips have a life of their own, you
failed to respond to the question of what and whether the BB is in
"trouble".
>
> > So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?
>
> Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist. When he does
> actual science, which seems to be rather rarely nowadays, he tends to
> be a biochemist. Not a particularly leading edge one, but that is not
> a serious knock. We cannot all be a Krebs or an Einstein. OTOH, his
> "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
> are not science.
>
I see. Behe is not an evolutionary scientist, because he isn't a
*real* scientist when it comes to his views of evolution. Nothing in
biology makes sense except in light of evolution, right Howard? And
being a *bio*chemist doesn't make him an "evolutionary scientist",
despite the fact that he makes claims about evolution, mutation
rate...right? "Right"?
AC
What about inflationary cosmology is in trouble, Glenn? Define "in
trouble" here. Does a theory have to complete, to explain everything,
before we can state that it is useful and does factually model some aspect
of the natural world?
>>
>> > So Behe for example, isn't an "evolutionary scientist", right?
>>
>> Behe definitely is not an "evolutionary" scientist. When he does
>> actual science, which seems to be rather rarely nowadays, he tends to
>> be a biochemist. Not a particularly leading edge one, but that is not
>> a serious knock. We cannot all be a Krebs or an Einstein. OTOH, his
>> "evolutionary" ideas are nonsensical. His ID ideas, such as they are,
>> are not science.
>>
> I see. Behe is not an evolutionary scientist, because he isn't a
> *real* scientist when it comes to his views of evolution. Nothing in
> biology makes sense except in light of evolution, right Howard? And
> being a *bio*chemist doesn't make him an "evolutionary scientist",
> despite the fact that he makes claims about evolution, mutation
> rate...right? "Right"?
Do you think Intelligent Design is science, Glenn? What do you think of
Behe's performance at the Dover Trial?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
hersheyh
No. He is not a real evolutionary scientist because he does no actual
research in evolution. He gives his rather unsupported and ignorant
opinion about evolution, but that makes him a creationist no better
than you are, not an evolutionary scientist. There are people who do
actual publishable research in the field who I think are nuts and
cranks in their views of evolution (Feduccia, Schwartz). Behe is not
even one of them.
> Nothing in
> biology makes sense except in light of evolution, right Howard? And
> being a *bio*chemist doesn't make him an "evolutionary scientist",
That's right. It doesn't.
> despite the fact that he makes claims about evolution, mutation
> rate...right? "Right"?
Again, Behe gives his unsupported and ignorant opinion about mutation
rates based on bogus assumptions that were refuted loooong before he
published. He has performed no experiments wrt mutation rates or
presented any research quality mathematical analyses that he has even
attempted to get published. He cherry picks his data and misinterprets
it. He doesn't do any of that in the actual scientific papers he has
published, which are NOT on evolutionary biology. Probably he
publishes only books because he knows the problems that would get the
articles rejected by anything other than the popular or religious
press. Merely making claims about evolution does not make one an
evolutionary biologist. If that were all that was required, YOU would
be an evolutionary biologist. And that would truly be laughable.
Hell, I don't even claim that *I* am an evolutionary biologist; I just
understand what they do and don't present idiotic misinterpretations
of them and the field like you an Behe do.
hersheyh
My failure to respond to that question was intentional. I do not know
enough about the evidence or field of cosmology to come to an
intelligent conclusion about whether or not the BB is in "trouble". I
am happy to let people who know more than I do or ever will work out
that particular mess of pottage. But I do know how science works and
was pointing out how *real* controversy works in science. As opposed
to the bogus "controversy" that is the latest incarnation of the
creation science/intelligent design attempts to get public schools to
become captives of fundamentalist religious sects.
[snip]
Glenn
Oops. So much for what you have said up till now.
>He has performed no experiments wrt mutation rates or
> presented any research quality mathematical analyses that he has even
> attempted to get published.
Being rather picky with what a real scientist is, aren't you?
http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/short/13/10/2651
I suppose that isn't enough "quality" math for a real scientist,
right?
And the requirement for real scientist is that he must perform real
experiments? So any papers that I read that do not involve real
experiments should be regarded as not scientific. I think I got it,
Howard.
>He cherry picks his data and misinterprets
> it. He doesn't do any of that in the actual scientific papers he has
> published, which are NOT on evolutionary biology.
Wow. I would have thought that anything about mutation would be about
evolution.
>Probably he
> publishes only books because he knows the problems that would get the
> articles rejected by anything other than the popular or religious
> press.
Probably, huh. Close your eyes and it will all go away. Believe it.
Because apparently you do.
>Merely making claims about evolution does not make one an
> evolutionary biologist.
Nice change of words. That's like evolution, right? A Howard monkey
typing at the keyboard, going from scientist to biologist?
Why no, Howard. Behe isn't, and has not to my knowledge, claimed that
he was an "evolutionary biologist". He is a biochemist.
>If that were all that was required, YOU would
> be an evolutionary biologist.
Requirements? What is required to be a scientist, Howard? You've
mentioned one or two. To do actual experiments. By the way, what does
"actual" mean?
>And that would truly be laughable.
> Hell, I don't even claim that *I* am an evolutionary biologist; I just
> understand what they do and don't present idiotic misinterpretations
> of them and the field like you an Behe do.
>
Oh, you understand. How fortunate and useful for you.
You're frothing at the mouth, Howard.
Glenn
In other words, you had nothing to say so changed the subject.
>But I do know how science works and
> was pointing out how *real* controversy works in science.
You seem to think you know a lot about what is "right" and "real".
That is pretty clear. And in my opinion, quite childish to claim.
>As opposed
> to the bogus "controversy" that is the latest incarnation of the
> creation science/intelligent design attempts to get public schools to
> become captives of fundamentalist religious sects.
>
The controversy over getting ID in schools is a different matter from
the merits of Behe or ID. I think it was you earlier in this thread
that tried to dismiss my argument about Darwin's theory by saying that
even if he didn't have a mechanism he was shown to be right. That is
equally bad reasoning.
Raving
> On Aug 21, 3:21 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >He cherry picks his data and misinterprets
> > it. He doesn't do any of that in the actual scientific papers he has
> > published, which are NOT on evolutionary biology.
Grantsmanship 101
Human nature 001
Does any successful researcher NOT do this?
( *Please* say "Yes"! )
hersheyh
No its not. The sole purpose of ID, the only purpose it ever had, was
to get "religion", specifically the particularly ignorant
fundamentalist Christianity found in America, into the public schools
as an antidote to "science". Evolution in particular, but really all
of "science" and its method of discovering how the material world
works, if the result of "scientific inquiry" is in disagreement with
their religious beliefs.
> I think it was you earlier in this thread
> that tried to dismiss my argument about Darwin's theory by saying that
> even if he didn't have a mechanism he was shown to be right. That is
> equally bad reasoning.
Darwin's goal was to convince serious *biologists* and other
scientifically minded adults (not elementary and high school kids)
that his ideas could explain the natural biotic world, both past and
present. He did it by collecting and presenting evidence in *favor*
of the idea of descent with modification and that natural selection
played a role in generating the modification of species as well as
conserving features of organisms.
And natural selection *is* a mechanism for generating *change* of
allele frequencies in populations of organisms, as well as a mechanism
for generating a dynamic stasis of conserved features when a local
optimum is reached. The absence of natural selection is neutral
drift. Most observed differences in sequence in organisms is
attributable to drift and not selection.
What you are complaining about is that he did not have a mechanism (or
not the now-considered 'correct' mechanism, since he did propose
genetic mechanisms) to explain the *fact* of generation of variation
in populations and the *fact* of heritable features. But all he
needed for the mechanism that he proposed, natural selection, to be
'possible' is that there be a mechanism that generates variation (that
generation of variation *be* a fact) and that there be a mechanism of
heritable transmission of traits (that inheritance, to some degree and
in some way, *be* a fact of nature).
hersheyh
Even before I read Michael Lynch's reply in press (below), even I
could see that, as Mike says in his abstract which is, for a science
article, brutally blunt: "It is shown here that the conclusions of
this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions,
inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic. Numerous simple
pathways exist by which adaptive multiresidue functions can evolve on
time scales of a million years (or much less) in populations of only
moderate size."
The rest of his paper demonstrates that the Behe and Snoke paper is
nothing but bogus numerology based on false assumptions about how
evolution and proteins work. Moreover, there are specific examples of
"cherry-picking" data (that is the polite term; the less polite is
"lying about") references that Behe and Snoke cite.
http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/9/2217
Rather than beat a dead horse, I will let the Lynch article speak for
me. If you want me to translate the parts you don't understand I will
try to do so, but I have serious doubts that you are capable of
understanding Lynch's points. After all, you clearly seem to be
capable of (willfully) misunderstanding even the simple fundamental
concept of natural selection.
> And the requirement for real scientist is that he must perform real
> experiments?
The Behe and Snoke paper is based on false assumptions of a NON-
DARWINIAN model and is entirely theoretical in nature. In the
imaginary universe where their false assumptions are true, the paper
might have some meaning. In the *real* world that we live in, it is
nothing but bogus numerology.
I'm drinking more beer.
Robert Grumbine
Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 19, 8:27 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>> In article <87d4xkd9ug....@speakeasy.net>,
>> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@speakeasy.net> writes:
>>
>> > One of the key elements of the Intelligent Design movement is the
>> > overwhelming propaganda drumbeat, often pressed upon their gullible
>> > audience desperate for confirmation, that Evolutionary science is in
>> > trouble.
>>
>> > The problem is that we don't actually see evolutionarly scientists
>> > saying this.
>>
>> > the article baldly), five layers to current cosomological theory: (1)
>> > that the universe is undergoing Expansion, (2) it is doing so because
>> > of Inflation
>>
>> Surely that's not correct.
>
>You are correct. Elf's summary is somewhat awry - especially the
>comment about inflation. If you read the actual article he is
>referring too, it is a bit more clear. The issue is related to the
>apparent surface brightness of distant galaxies. Tolman predicted (way
>back when) that all else being equal, the surface brightness of
>galaxies should decrease as (1 + z)^4. This is one of the tests that
>contradicts the so called 'tired light' ideas as tired light would
>predict a linear relationship (1 + z). The earliest useful
>measurements about six or seven years ago came in between (1 + z)^2.6
>to (1 + z)^3.2 which is well at odds with the tired light hypothesis.
>The discrepancy with the power of 4 was claimed to be due to galaxies
>having a much higher intrinsic surface brightness when they were young
>due to a higher proportion of OBA type stars (Sandage & Lubin 2001).
>More recent analysis seems to show that there is still a discrepancy,
>which higher intrinsic surface brightness can't account for. If you
>have a look through the arxiv.org e-print library you will see that
>this is a hot topic at present. Search on Tolman surface brightness.
I went to the article and ... well ... some hyperbole must
be involved in the author's pointing to expansion itself being
(at least now) questionable, much less disproven by the above. It is
the above discrepancy which he seems to think is the crux of
disproof of expansion.
But ... all that is actually there is that there is a
conflict between a prediction of what you would see if
galaxy brightness behaved a certain way and if general
relativity behaved in a certain way. As you get to extreme
distances, one may be stuck with galaxy brightness as your
only standard candle; it's a while since I studied the matter.
Expansion, though, shows up through quite a few other
distance measures and candles. Even if the galaxy brightness
issue is absolutely correct, the other observations show
at least several billion years of expansion.
The background radiation is strongly supportive of expansion
from a state of the (presently observable) universe having been
nearly isothermal at the ionization temperature of hydrogen.
This is distinctly later than the 'bang' itself, to be sure.
But it will require some pretty fancy explaining to get it
_without_ expansion in the universe.
Similarly, 'primordial' elemental abundances make sense
with a universe expanding rapidly through a state of stellar-core
temperatures and densities. (The author also greatly
underrates this prediction.)
Now, if his real concern is before the 2-3 minute point,
I agree there's a lot of question. Inflation is so very
much like a just-so story that I've never been happy with it.
But this doesn't seem to be the case (his concern being that
early, that is.).
As it stands, there seem to be several options to explaining
the (1+z)^3 vs. (1+z)^4 problem, without throwing out expansion:
* There's something about galactic brightness evolution we don't undertand
* There's something about light we don't understand (I guess this
would be a brightening, rather than dimming/tiring, effect,
on the scale of billions of years)
* There's something about general relativity we don't understand
* The above all are true to some degree
* More and niftier things at work
Of the three that leapt to my mind, galactic brightness evolution
stands out by far as the least well-constrained.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
josephus
thre are several "standard candles? supernovae, cephid variables,
and dopler shifits. objects which show a shift of Z = 1.7 or so are
very, very far away. some galaxies are so far away ans receding that
they are acutely RED SHIFTED. the information for these things
indicate that galaxies are receding. EXPANSION. Hubble discoved this.
the motion curves of galaies have been examined and the question of
DARK MATTER has been noted. not to mention DARK ENERGY.
these ideas mean the unverse is even stranger than we imagine
> Expansion, though, shows up through quite a few other
> distance measures and candles. Even if the galaxy brightness
> issue is absolutely correct, the other observations show
> at least several billion years of expansion.
>
the backgrougn radiation is not uniform and shows our doppler motion.
the background radiation is the equivalent of a black body radistoin
of a 2.73 degree celcius remaider that if brought to our center here
would have a temperate of 2.&* times 14.1 billion parsecs. that is HOT.
> The background radiation is strongly supportive of expansion
> from a state of the (presently observable) universe having been
> nearly isothermal at the ionization temperature of hydrogen.
> This is distinctly later than the 'bang' itself, to be sure.
> But it will require some pretty fancy explaining to get it
> _without_ expansion in the universe.
>
the background radiaton is when the fireball became transparent
(cooled off)
> Similarly, 'primordial' elemental abundances make sense
> with a universe expanding rapidly through a state of stellar-core
> temperatures and densities. (The author also greatly
> underrates this prediction.)
>
if I recall right the question is why there does not seem to be very
much anti-matter. there could be anti-galaxies (not found yet) mostly
it seems to be quantum inequality.
> Now, if his real concern is before the 2-3 minute point,
> I agree there's a lot of question. Inflation is so very
> much like a just-so story that I've never been happy with it.
> But this doesn't seem to be the case (his concern being that
> early, that is.).
>
cosmology is a science and has several competing theories. thare are
at lest two varieties of the inflation theries. and thaere is a composit
theory using it.
> As it stands, there seem to be several options to explaining
> the (1+z)^3 vs. (1+z)^4 problem, without throwing out expansion:
> * There's something about galactic brightness evolution we don't undertand
> * There's something about light we don't understand (I guess this
> would be a brightening, rather than dimming/tiring, effect,
> on the scale of billions of years)
> * There's something about general relativity we don't understand
> * The above all are true to some degree
> * More and niftier things at work
>
I used to read a lot in this areal the problem with galactic
brightnesses has to do with interactions (star formation and motion) and
the homomorphic assumption that galaxies are all of a size is simply not
true. as we look far backward in time galaxies look like train
wrecks. the closer galaxies vary in size and brightness. the ANDROMEDA
GALAXY seems to have been struck in the center by a small galaxy. it
has RINGS instead of ARMS. some of the brightest galaxies are giant
elliptial galaxies. (the moddern version of the train wrecks.)
NOTE there is evidence of stars jumping out of the edges of the galaxy.
(or the galaxy contractiong) it appares as a haze in a high resolution
picture.
our galaxy and andromda are BRIGHT GALAXIES. and some time soon will try
to merge. (they are approaching each other.) 74 ks/s dived into 2.2
million lightyears. the sun may go NOVA first.
> Of the three that leapt to my mind, galactic brightness evolution
> stands out by far as the least well-constrained.
jospehus
I go saiing in the summer and do astronomy in the winter.