Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Russia teen sues over evolution teaching

Russia teen sues over evolution teaching (Page 8)
Thread Tools
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
You can't teach ID/Creation as an alternate to Evolution becuase ID/Creation is not a theory! PERIOD!
Hey, don't look at me, I didn't come up with it.

Now, I'll go back to eating popcorn and enjoying this hilarious 7-page 8-page thread.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Logically speaking, I can't think of another remotely likely explanation for what we're seeing.
This could not be a more perfect example of the point I am trying to make. Just because there is no other theory with as much evidence does not confirm our best guess. It just means we need to find more evidence before confirming on denying a theory/hypothesis. It is not fact because modern science cannot provide an alternative. It needs to have its own proof beyond a doubt outside of alternative theories.
Coincidentally enough, this could not be a more perfect example of the point I am trying to make. No matter how much proof we have, it will never be enough for your tastes, will it?

Chromosomes have very distinct features — telomeres on the ends, centromeres in the middle, genes in specific places. This chromosome not only has all the same genes as two chromosomes found in chimpanzees, it also has telomeres (that is, the end of a chromosome) stuck in the middle — as well as a second, vestigial centromere, right where we would expect it to be if this chromosome were made up of those two. This is EXACTLY what two fused-together chromosomes look like. What better proof could possibly exist?

If we applied this same thinking to everything, we would be completely unable to function. There is no proof beyond a doubt, only proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and there is nothing to indicate it might not be a duck, it is not reasonable to doubt that it's a duck. You can investigate and try to find evidence that it's not a duck if you want, but don't expect people to take the idea seriously until that time.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Now, relating my point to the original thread. The science textbook has no place denying a possibility (any possibility) without sufficient evidence to [i]prove[/] beyond a doubt that the theory is absolutely false. It would be far better to omit other possibilities then to arrogantly deny them, especially when a good portion of the population believes in them.
No, the book should not say "This is not remotely possible." However, the book is entirely within its rights to say "This is not remotely likely" or "This idea is not scientific" if we have a lot of evidence does not in any way support an idea. It's not obligated to give credence to an ridiculously unlikely idea. (For instance, biology textbooks do not usually label their pictures like, "This is a creature some people believe to be a duck, but that isn't a proven theory.")
( Last edited by Chuckit; Jan 3, 2007 at 03:49 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I've called you arrogant for continually stating evolution as fact and denying the very possibility of ID.
Here's your problem. I never stated evolution as fact (if you mean the universal common ancestry part of evolution, not the natural selection through adaptation part, which is a tautology), and on many occasions I specifically denied that it is "fact," as no scientific conclusions are "fact."

Also neither I nor any other scientist denies the possibility of ID. Never. They merely deny that it has any evidence for it. People like you imply there is evidence, and people like Behe outright claim there is. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to have something to object to, namely claim of evidence. No one denies that ID is a possibility, and no one denies that the saucer people or the reverse vampires are a possibility, nor the possibility that the earth is really a cube and we just can't tell. The only thing people deny is that these possibilities are supported by evidence and therefore scientific.


You are the one who ignores the scientific method when you say in one breath that ID is absolutely false and in the next that you don't deny other possibilities. Which one is it?
I suspect your confusion lies in the part where I said that IF anything is holding back the evidence for ID, it is NOT people but rather the fact that ID is false. I didn't not say THAT ID is false, I said that there is a POSSIBILITY that ID is false and if that possibility is true it is the only thing (actively) preventing evidence for it from being found.

No, I've said time and time again that it shouldn't be taken as fact, and you've come up with a plethora of arguments against it. Never once have you said "you are correct we should consider other possibilities as evolution is not a proven theory." Even when you agree with what I've been arguing this entire time you find a way to argue it to me.
You will never be satisfied until you accept the fact that there is no such thing as "a proven theory." Theories are not proven right, only proven wrong. The longer you ignore this reality, the more time you will spend in this intellectual quagmire you've gotten yourself in.

Nope, but will you deny that other forces could be acting upon the comet such as dark energy and exotic matter? Things we know almost nothing about? Will you?
Of course there could be. But is there evidence for these things?




Oh that's rich. Who vehemently denies other possibilities? We scorn them, but only because their proponents make false claims about the "proven-ness" (a sure tip-off that they are full of crap) of their "theories." Have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
I've tried to make it clear over and over I am not arguing for creationism.
I didn't mention Creationism, you did. Maybe the reason people don't understand what you think you're saying is because you're not saying what you think you're saying.


Let me get this straight. In order for me to prove the point that there is much to learn I have to specify what exactly we have left to learn? How does that work?
Exactly. You made the bold claim that "we don't know enough." How do you justify this claim? I see three possibilities. Either there is some specific area you know of on which we are ignorant (which one is it?), or you think there is a certain quantitative threshold of information that is needed in order to "know enough" (what is that threshold?), or you are simply saying that no matter how much we know there is always more to know and therefore no conclusions can ever be certain, and thus all ideas are eternally valid at least to some degree. Which is it? Or perhaps there's another way to interpret your bold clain that "we don't know **** about ****?" Perhaps we actually do know "enough" to draw certain conclusions, but you just don't know what it is that we know, yet at the same time you feel yourself qualified to contradict experts in the field who say that we do know enough about their field to draw these conclusions.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
The fundamental difference is that Einstein's theories did not contradict any existing evidence. On the contrary, they were developed because existing theories did not account for all evidence available at the time.

Theories are refined, detailed, or modified as new observations are made.

They are thrown overboard when observations are made that are not explainable within the framework of existing theory.

They are NOT, however, thrown overboard when a new idea is put forth that contradicts ALL available evidence and has NO observations or evidence to present in its support. In fact, such fantasy is relegated to fiction and understandably treated as such by scientists.

That's not "arrogance". That's reality.
Well put.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Coincidentally enough, this could not be a more perfect example of the point I am trying to make. No matter how much proof we have, it will never be enough for your tastes, will it?

Chromosomes have very distinct features — telomeres on the ends, centromeres in the middle, genes in specific places. This chromosome not only has all the same genes as two chromosomes found in chimpanzees, it also has telomeres (that is, the end of a chromosome) stuck in the middle — as well as a second, vestigial centromere, right where we would expect it to be if this chromosome were made up of those two. This is EXACTLY what two fused-together chromosomes look like. What better proof could possibly exist?

If we applied this same thinking to everything, we would be completely unable to function. There is no proof beyond a doubt, only proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and there is nothing to indicate it might not be a duck, it is not reasonable to doubt that it's a duck. You can investigate and try to find evidence that it's not a duck if you want, but don't expect people to take the idea seriously until that time.


No, the book should not say "This is not remotely possible." However, the book is entirely within its rights to say "This is not remotely likely" or "This idea is not scientific" if we have a lot of evidence does not in any way support an idea. It's not obligated to give credence to an ridiculously unlikely idea. (For instance, biology textbooks do not usually label their pictures like, "This is a creature some people believe to be a duck, but that isn't a proven theory.")
Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Snow-i: re "proof," no, this is not "proof" per se, but it's pretty much as close to "proof" as one could expect. That's why the question to you is "what 'better proof' than this would satisfy you?" This is a reasonable question to someone who has claimed that what we have isn't "good enough," because this evidence specifically does qualify for "good enough" in most people's eyes, and so if you say it's not, then what would be?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Its important when these "facts" are used to deny the possibility of an alternative/complimentary theory to the origins of humanity, such as ID.
The burden of proof is on the proponents of the "new" idea.

Mountain of evidence for existing theory vs. no evidence whatsoever for a "new" idea, and it doesn't take more than a sixth-grade education and some VERY basic common sense to do the math.

It would be different if someone came up and said, "Hey, this and this phenomenon is not explained by your theory. How about this explanation?" Which is precisely one of the things you've been trying to do in this thread.

However, you got confused by what you *thought* "Intelligent Design" meant.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Sorry. I'm not the guy who starts off insulting people. I don't need to. My arguments are able to stand on their own.

A. Which 2 apes mated in order for these chromosomes to "fuse"? Or, was this just supposition based on similarities between our chromosomes and those of some apes?
Note the numerous references above to I.D. proponents arguing from a complete and utter ignorance of the subject.

Q.E.D. - the above is a perfect case in point.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Here's your problem. I never stated evolution as fact (if you mean the universal common ancestry part of evolution, not the natural selection through adaptation part, which is a tautology), and on many occasions I specifically denied that it is "fact," as no scientific conclusions are "fact."
This is what I've been trying to say the entire time. Not because I don't believe you know this, but from the others who've replied to my posts a)without reading them b)assuming that evolution is fact or c) complete ignorance on my stance in the issue. If you'd like, i will go back and cite clear examples...but in the interest of the rest of my evening i do not wish to.

Also neither I nor any other scientist denies the possibility of ID. Never. They merely deny that it has any evidence for it. People like you imply there is evidence, and people like Behe outright claim there is. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to have something to object to, namely claim of evidence. No one denies that ID is a possibility, and no one denies that the saucer people or the reverse vampires are a possibility, nor the possibility that the earth is really a cube and we just can't tell. The only thing people deny is that these possibilities are supported by evidence and therefore scientific.
"people like me." I kind of resent that, but whatever. I agree with you here. I've been trying to say the same thing. Many of the early arguments did not make this clear and implied the opposite.


I suspect your confusion lies in the part where I said that IF anything is holding back the evidence for ID, it is NOT people but rather the fact that ID is false. I didn't not say THAT ID is false, I said that there is a POSSIBILITY that ID is false and if that possibility is true it is the only thing (actively) preventing evidence for it from being found.
I'm glad you clarified your meaning in this post. The original text implied that you were making the assertion that ID was indeed false. Perhaps I did not read it closely enough.

You will never be satisfied until you accept the fact that there is no such thing as "a proven theory." Theories are not proven right, only proven wrong. The longer you ignore this reality, the more time you will spend in this intellectual quagmire you've gotten yourself in.
I've been trying to say the entire thread that there is no such thing as a proven theory, and that when arguing a subject this should be kept in mind. There is no absolution in our theories today and there should not be. I've not been the one ignoring this reality. MY only argument was for this one "reality."

Of course there could be. But is there evidence for these things?
look into it, you will find that there is a ton of "evidence" (if you call it that) with no explanation other then theoretical energy/matter sources that affect the very fabric of our universe. In other words, as we understand it today our universe could not act/exist the way we observe it without these things.


I didn't mention Creationism, you did. Maybe the reason people don't understand what you think you're saying is because you're not saying what you think you're saying.
Who are you trying to kid? who else could you mean by "but only because their proponents make false claims about the 'proven-ness' (a sure tip-off that they are full of crap)."

Exactly. You made the bold claim that "we don't know enough." How do you justify this claim? I see three possibilities. Either there is some specific area you know of on which we are ignorant (which one is it?), or you think there is a certain quantitative threshold of information that is needed in order to "know enough" (what is that threshold?), or you are simply saying that no matter how much we know there is always more to know and therefore no conclusions can ever be certain, and thus all ideas are eternally valid at least to some degree. Which is it? Or perhaps there's another way to interpret your bold clain that "we don't know **** about ****?" Perhaps we actually do know "enough" to draw certain conclusions, but you just don't know what it is that we know, yet at the same time you feel yourself qualified to contradict experts in the field who say that we do know enough about their field to draw these conclusions.
[/quote]

If we don't even know how humanity evolved (or who it evolved from), I believe I am in my right to safely say we don't know enough about evolution to "prove it" with a reasonable degree of certainty (for absolution, not plausibility). As for a clear threshhold? Doubtful, there will always be dissenters. But there is certainly alot more specifics on the subject that we have yet to discover. Do you agree?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 07:38 PM
 
If ID actually was a theory you would be half-right :/

Sorry. Try again.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm glad you clarified your meaning in this post. The original text implied that you were making the assertion that ID was indeed false. Perhaps I did not read it closely enough.
Let me also make something clear, in the interests of openness. I have no doubt that ID is false. But that is a personal belief, not a scientific or professional one. Just like Ken Miller, noted evolution supporter and debater, has personal beliefs in Catholicism. Science is my job, and part of my job is knowing how to keep my expectational bias out of it.

Anyway, just because I think it is false, does not mean I wouldn't love to see it provent true. Just as I know that anti-gravity devices are impossible, I would love to see that disproven as well.

look into it, you will find that there is a ton of "evidence" (if you call it that) with no explanation other then theoretical energy/matter sources that affect the very fabric of our universe. In other words, as we understand it today our universe could not act/exist the way we observe it without these things.
But they are predictive, and quantitative.

Who are you trying to kid? who else could you mean by "but only because their proponents make false claims about the 'proven-ness' (a sure tip-off that they are full of crap)."
I'm not alluding to anyone. I'm saying that when you jump on the "other possibilities" bandwagon, you inherit the baggage of your fellows, whether or not your "other possibilities" are the same ones they've worn out their welcome with. Whatever leeway "other possibilities" had for speculation sans evidence has been used up long ago.

If we don't even know how humanity evolved (or who it evolved from)
We do. Chimps. You can hardly fault us for not knowing which intermediate forms came in between, and which survived to beget us, when those intermediate forms no longer exist. That's like saying "there was a proto-galaxy Bill and one called Ted which fused to become the Milky-Way, and unless you can show which original Earth came from, you can't say anything about physics or astronomy."

You're falling into the old trap again. "We don't know everything" is different from "we don't know anything." Let me assure you, we know some things.

I believe I am in my right to safely say we don't know enough about evolution to "prove it" with a reasonable degree of certainty (for absolution, not plausibility).
You say you know -- and argue! -- that no science is ever proven, and that the word "proven" is meaningless in this context, yet you insist on using it anyway! Very well, I'll play your game. But I will use the word evorp in place of prove, with the understanding that evorp means to a less-than-one probability which to your mind satisfies "proven."

This chromosome fusion evidence evorps that we evolved from apes. How can you argue that it is not evorped in light of this evidence, and furthermore what better evidence could ever be gathered that would make you say that it is evorped?


As for a clear threshhold? Doubtful, there will always be dissenters. But there is certainly alot more specifics on the subject that we have yet to discover. Do you agree?
I don't know what you mean. Ordinarily I would say "specifics" refers to those detail which would not change the conclusion, in which case my answer is "irrelevant." Is that what you meant?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 08:47 PM
 
We did not evolve from Chimps, rather Homo Sapiens and Pan troglodytes/Pan paniscus have a common ancestor:


Sahelanthropus tchadensis

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.

My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.
I believe it was RC Sproul who made an interesting statement about prayer in public schools as a school sanctioned-activity. If you insist allowing one religion in the classroom, then true freedom of religion provides that all religions must be allowed in the classroom. The "spaghetti monster" story is a definite barb thrust at traditional Christian beliefs, but at the same time, if there were people who truly believed that a pile of spaghetti created the world, then to teach ID, Creationism, or anything else in a biology classroom would require that the Theory of Spaghetti be taught as well.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However, how to deal with that in a school environment is difficult. For many people, the best option is to invest in a non-public education for their children. I went to a private non-denomination Christian school K-12 and a public university. While both settings have their downsides, they also have their benefits. Freedom of religion means that I'm allowed to go to a school that teaches Christian values, including Creationism, and it's a perfectly viable alternative for those who are uncomfortable in a public school setting.

What I noted in the article, though, was the student's statement on how the book refers to religiously-related explanations for how the universe began in a negative light. While I'm guessing Russia doesn't operate on the same foundation of personal freedom in which the United States is grounded, as far as us in the USA are concerned, this is where I have a problem. Freedom of religion should mean that anyone is allowed to practice any religion they choose without persecution. When a teacher openly mocks a Christian student for believing that God created the universe, that's 100% infringing on that student's freedom of religion. It's possible to teach the theory evolution without including bits about how "some people blindly accept religious explanations" and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Unless God used the Big Bang to create the Universe and Evolution to make His Creation adaptable to change.

The Bible does not explain the Physics of Creation nor the Science of Life.
Also a tricky thing. Faith is not bound to science. While you can have both coexisting very peacefully in your life, faith is plainly defined as believing in that which cannot necessarily be explained. Theistic evolution is the idea that God created the universe through the Big Bang and evolution to the point that we all evolved from single-celled organisms in a puddle of sludge. This is extremely dangerous, because similar to other things, it tries to put God into a box. If we as humans can't completely comprehend how God does something, we try to force Him and what He's done and still doing into a nice little compact package that makes sense to us. That's just not how it works. Faith is the complete opposite of attempting to explain away everything in our lives and the world around us. Many things are explained through faith, not in spite of it.

Originally Posted by mania View Post
Let me guess. Genesis. being raised up Christian it took me A LONG TIME to realize that Genesis is wrong. I am a bit angry about the whole thing although I am still a Christian. She needs to learn the truth - it will set her free.
Not necessarily the truth. Evolution is a theory. I don't think any reputable scientist on the planet would say that the theory of evolution is a rock solid, hard fact. Gravity is a fact. Our innate need for oxygen in the atmosphere to survive is a fact. Evolution is not. It is a theory backed up by much evidence. It is not a fact.

I haven't read through all eight pages of posts, so sorry if this is repetitive. I just wanted to contribute something.

I should mention something else here... A large population of Christians do not believe in what is considered "new creation" - that the earth is only around 2500 years old. Many Christians, including many fundamentalists (not legalists who won't let women cut their hair or wear pants, but fundamentalists who remain true to the fundamental basis of Christianity and faith in God), agree that we as humans do not know for sure how old the earth and universe are, and that the account of creation in the Bible simply doesn't tell us how long the process of creation actually took. That is not to say that this is in accordance with the theory of evolution as the start of life on earth. It is, hoewever, to say that the earth could very well be several billion years old. No amount of radioactive dating and anything else can tell us for sure what happened back then or how long ago it was, since we weren't there to see it and document it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Are you saying we shouldn't conclude anything about evolution unless the experiments in question perform "these tests?"
No.

I find fault with the statement that an "unkown energy force" can be scientific, unless you meant "unknown but measurable," in which case how do we measure it (the one you're talking about)?
The same way we measured how much of the sun's rays are absorbed by radioactive ores in order for them to give off their energy.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jan 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
If ID actually was a theory you would be half-right :/

Sorry. Try again.
Sorry. Try again.

You could use the qualifier "scientific", but as we saw in the other thread, even that will have it's own set of pitfalls.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. However, how to deal with that in a school environment is difficult.
Actually it's not difficult at all: keep religion to religion classes and science to science classes.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Sorry. Try again.

You could use the qualifier "scientific", but as we saw in the other thread, even that will have it's own set of pitfalls.
Please elaborate. ID has no testable hypothesises thus fail the very definition of theory:
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
Note that I do not even need to qualify this with "scientific", because applying the word as ID people use it (so called "common usage") is muddling of the word "theory" when we have perfectly good descriptors for that already: ideas, opinion, speculation, conjectures etc. etc. Or in the case of ID itself: myths and beliefs.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:23 PM
 
I know one thing, science isn't about being close minded to anything.

A lot of you really don't respect science in that way.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I know one thing, science isn't about being close minded to anything.

A lot of you really don't respect science in that way.
Nice trollin', Tex. Just toss out some vague, nonspecific criticism of "a lot of you" and let the flames rage.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I know one thing, science isn't about being close minded to anything.
Indeed. There is no way "science" can be close minded about anything. That's because science is a method, not an entity capable of thought and emotions.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Nice trollin', Tex. Just toss out some vague, nonspecific criticism of "a lot of you" and let the flames rage.
Not trying to flame at all. Just making an observation. Lots of close mindedness going on throughout this thread.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not trying to flame at all. Just making an observation. Lots of close mindedness going on throughout this thread.
I'll agree with you on this. However, as someone who came to the idea of intelligent design on my own over 15 years ago, I also agree that the idea of ID has no place in science textbooks or classrooms until it is explored, tested, and proven using scientific method.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 11:07 PM
 
"proven"?

hell, what you're saying is evolution should not be taught either.

Not that any of this matters - since teachers can't even manage to teach children to read and write. I highly doubt they could teach children anything else.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
Not that any of this matters - since teachers can't even manage to teach children to read and write.
Thanks for the PSA.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
"proven"?

hell, what you're saying is evolution should not be taught either.

Not that any of this matters - since teachers can't even manage to teach children to read and write. I highly doubt they could teach children anything else.
Proven, insofar as any scientific theory is and can be proven. I debated about using the word "proven".
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Let me also make something clear, in the interests of openness. I have no doubt that ID is false. But that is a personal belief, not a scientific or professional one. Just like Ken Miller, noted evolution supporter and debater, has personal beliefs in Catholicism. Science is my job, and part of my job is knowing how to keep my expectational bias out of it.

Anyway, just because I think it is false, does not mean I wouldn't love to see it provent true. Just as I know that anti-gravity devices are impossible, I would love to see that disproven as well.

As is it should be, you keep your professional opinion and your personal beliefs seperate.


But they are predictive, and quantitative.
And?
I'm not alluding to anyone. I'm saying that when you jump on the "other possibilities" bandwagon, you inherit the baggage of your fellows, whether or not your "other possibilities" are the same ones they've worn out their welcome with. Whatever leeway "other possibilities" had for speculation sans evidence has been used up long ago.
Thats absurd. Exactly why I took problem with the way you posted in the first place. You basically argued with me for views i did not hold. Thats a close-minded, arrogant "i know your arguments better than you do" type of attitude. Its rude as well.

We do. Chimps. You can hardly fault us for not knowing which intermediate forms came in between, and which survived to beget us, when those intermediate forms no longer exist. That's like saying "there was a proto-galaxy Bill and one called Ted which fused to become the Milky-Way, and unless you can show which original Earth came from, you can't say anything about physics or astronomy."

You're falling into the old trap again. "We don't know everything" is different from "we don't know anything." Let me assure you, we know some things.
If we had such a comprehensive understand of our evolution we would be able to interpolate with great accuracy those "missing links" you speak of.

You say you know -- and argue! -- that no science is ever proven, and that the word "proven" is meaningless in this context, yet you insist on using it anyway! Very well, I'll play your game. But I will use the word evorp in place of prove, with the understanding that evorp means to a less-than-one probability which to your mind satisfies "proven."

This chromosome fusion evidence evorps that we evolved from apes. How can you argue that it is not evorped in light of this evidence, and furthermore what better evidence could ever be gathered that would make you say that it is evorped?
Very well. The evidence evorps The theory. No arguments here.



I don't know what you mean. Ordinarily I would say "specifics" refers to those detail which would not change the conclusion, in which case my answer is "irrelevant." Is that what you meant?
If we don't know the specifics, we can't be certain that they don't affect the way we understand evolution.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No.
Then I don't see how your "unkown fields" ideas have any relevance to anything. If you want to go investigate them, go ahead, who's stopping you? The only reason you'd have to complain is that other people aren't doing your legwork for you, in which case TS.



The same way we measured how much of the sun's rays are absorbed by radioactive ores in order for them to give off their energy.
Are you mocking your own idea?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not trying to flame at all. Just making an observation. Lots of close mindedness going on throughout this thread.
Yep, textbook Kevin. Doesn't want to flame, wants to be flamed, exactly like ChuckIt just said.

Lesson 1: Say something ambiguous and wait to be attacked. Then play martyr card.

Lesson 2: If ambiguous trolling does not get response, wait 3 days and refer to Lesson 1.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And?
Unlike ID or any other alternative to evolution.


Exactly why I took problem with the way you posted in the first place. You basically argued with me for views i did not hold. Thats a close-minded, arrogant "i know your arguments better than you do" type of attitude.
nope.



If we had such a comprehensive understand of our evolution we would be able to interpolate with great accuracy those "missing links" you speak of.
Very well. The evidence evorps The theory. No arguments here.
The above two statements seem to be contradictory. I suspect the confusion is here:
"If we had such a comprehensive understand of our evolution"
What in tarnation does that mean? Are you distinguishing whether or not we have an understanding sufficient to say (beyond reasonable doubt, or in your words, "proven") that humans evolved from apes? That's really the only context I can put it in, as the "missing links" were between humans and apes. But you later accept that the human-ape connection is in your words "proven."

If we don't know the specifics, we can't be certain that they don't affect the way we understand evolution.
"the way we understand evolution?" that's an annoyingly vague phrase. As stated, under a normal understanding of the English language, it should exclude alternate theories which contradict evolution, but somehow I think you mean it to include "we don't know **** about ****," as that is your stated thesis.

So let's have it, plain and simple. Are you talking about "specifics" large enough to include ideas contradictory to evolution, or only as things small enough that they have no bearing on the Evolution/ID/FSM/other debate?
     
Kevin  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yep, textbook Kevin. Doesn't want to flame, wants to be flamed, exactly like ChuckIt just said.
How about no, no, and ... wait for it.. no.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 07:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The analogy in question says "we know jackson pollock paints things that look as if they were random splatters, that's why we suspect jackson pollock when we see things that look as if they were random splatters." But here's the thing: we already know about jackson pollock and we know that his style was splashing paint, independent of whatever painting is currently under consideration. We have no such independent information about god.
As you know, there is considerable room for bias when addressing the unknown such as extra-terrestrials for example. It has generally been implied that they would be very similar to us, but more advanced. Those adhering to a strict interpretation of Scripture likewise believe this about the extra-terrestrial nature of God. That He is both "like us", but far more advanced. You can sigh a breath of relief at my use of the word "bias" because that's what I believe gives most thrust to the 'just-so story' of ID. However, even those not of faith that assume there is intelligent life outside of our planet, assume some similarity to humans; i.e. head, legs, arms, brain, etc...I believe the irreconcilable disconnect between proponents of ID and proponents of evolution (other than the acceptance or denial of empirical science) is one of focus and prioritization. More on that in a minute.

The ID version of the analogy would be "we know god creates things that look as though they developed by random mutation and common ancestry, therefore we suspect god when we see things that look as if they developed by random mutation." What's the basis for that first part then? We haven't seen god make these creations (as we've seen pollock make his). We haven't even got god's alleged testimony about that. The best we've got is the bible, which if anything contradicts the similarity to products of random mutation (things were created purposefully as they are, and from clay not DNA).
Two things here crudely;

- "what" we see and...
- "how" what we see, is.

Proponents of ID are fixated on the "what" we see. What do they see? Deliberation, coding, engineering, and design.

Proponents of evolution assume the nature of "what" for the sake of brevity and advancement in the interest of "how".

For example (again crudely)...

Evolution proponent; "yeah, that's a cool little micro-machine, but how did it evolve to this state?

ID proponents; "but wait a minute, it's a cool little micro-machine?"

Most proponents of ID that I've read aren't necessarily saying "God did it". (though, to be clear in most cases they may as well be), they are simply trying to imply that there is an intelligent agency involved VS purely natural phenomena. They may well be assuming the "who" based on the bias I mentioned earlier, but it is a popular bias. I suppose you could blame the all time best-selling book for not only the fixation on "what", but the presupposition of "who". That said; you can hardly blame the hobbyist ID enthusiast for indicting science's use of words like; "directed", "coding", "transport", "machinery", "factory", "designed", etc... I understand these as the best ways to describe the processes in question. However, staunch ID proponents feel there is simply no other way to describe what appears to be machinery, factory, coding, directed, and design. I believe even you have expressed a distaste for scientists' use of such terminology.

To be clear, my change in attitude has come from the fact that while the notion of ID is attractive to one of faith (admitting presupposition here in honesty), there is simply no empirical evidence to back the creation story. The "what" is intriguing, but in most cases adequately described by scientists' exhaustive R&D related to "how".


And given that the bible is not going to be accepted as scientific evidence (right?),
Correct.

Wiskedjak's analogy would be in a world where no jackson pollock had existed (or rather, been recorded in any way), and would go "We hypothesize that one of the painters splashes paint as their technique, even though we don't have evidence that s/he existed, and the only basis for that hypothesis is that there must have been one because there are a bunch of canvases in this warehouse with paint splashed on them and empty paint buckets lying around on the floor."
True and while you might not be able to definitively state "who" did it, it is relatively safe to assume the paint cans did not pry themselves open, raise themselves to the canvas, and begin splashing. If the argument is whether or not an intelligent agency was involved (not withstanding the apparently sloppy outcome), one could safely assume someone did this.

The reason it's a problem for this argument to have a "designer" specifically identified is because the argument goes that we can recognize this designer's style specifically. But how do you recognize the style of god as opposed to any other designer, scientifically speaking?
Again, the "who" is intriguing, but is generally considered outside the realm of science. Even proponents of ID back-peddle with regard to "who" for this fact. ID proponents (regardless of bias and in many respects, empirical science) are simply trying to imply design over purely natural phenomena.

It's obvious because we draw specific similarities between it and other things we ourselves designed. Humans have been standing rocks upright for a long time, to build shelters and monuments. It's obvious that it is similar to our own designed things. If you argued that it was designed by aliens rather than humans, would that argument be as strong? No, of course not, because we don't have any framework for recognizing alien design. The only designs we recognize are ones that are specifically similar to things humans design. That the designer was human is inextricably linked to all the ways we have for recognizing design.
I completely agree here and to reiterate, this is why ID fails in the realm of science. It is attempting to imply design over purely natural phenomena when the empirical scientific evidence already adequately illustrates purely natural phenomena. Again, the difference is in focus. One side assumes the "what" for brevity and advancement and as such enjoys advancement. The other side is fixated on the "what" (and in most cases the "who") and as such does not enjoy advancement.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If we don't know the specifics, we can't be certain that they don't affect the way we understand evolution.
Bollocks. You're arguing from ignorance again.

The "specifics" you refer to are in the "how", not the "what".

To use the example that keeps getting mentioned, but that you never respond to: We know from experience and observation that gravity HAPPENS. The theory of gravity describes very accurately what will happen, and what laws it will follow. However, we have pretty much no clue at all HOW gravity itself works. What causes masses to attract each other? It might be God.

Oddly, nobody whatsoever has put forth the idea that the "theory of gravity" is not sufficiently proven, and that "Intelligent Falling" needs to be taught alongside Newton and Einstein.

We actually know a lot more about how evolution works than about how gravity works.



Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Also a tricky thing. Faith is not bound to science. While you can have both coexisting very peacefully in your life, faith is plainly defined as believing in that which cannot necessarily be explained. Theistic evolution is the idea that God created the universe through the Big Bang and evolution to the point that we all evolved from single-celled organisms in a puddle of sludge. This is extremely dangerous, because similar to other things, it tries to put God into a box. If we as humans can't completely comprehend how God does something, we try to force Him and what He's done and still doing into a nice little compact package that makes sense to us. That's just not how it works. Faith is the complete opposite of attempting to explain away everything in our lives and the world around us. Many things are explained through faith, not in spite of it.
This point is an interesting one, but it completely fails to explain why NOBODY is threatened by, for example, the theory of gravity, or energy. Those are extremely detailed and very predictable frameworks, that have reduced "God" to a series of little formulas and variables. Oddly, no pseudo-scientific crackpots are rallying ignorants and picketing Boards of Education over this.

Why? Why are these less "dangerous"?


Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Evolution is a theory. I don't think any reputable scientist on the planet would say that the theory of evolution is a rock solid, hard fact. Gravity is a fact. Our innate need for oxygen in the atmosphere to survive is a fact. Evolution is not. It is a theory backed up by much evidence. It is not a fact.
Evolution IS a rock solid, hard fact. It happens, and there is TONS of evidence for it. There is NO doubt about that in the scientific community.

Whether certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution, as detailed by Darwin, and refined by generations of biologists since then, are entirely accurate, is regularly in dispute as new evidence is unearthed. That is how science works.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If we had such a comprehensive understand of our evolution we would be able to interpolate with great accuracy those "missing links" you speak of.
We are, that's the point.

We can pretty much predict what *should* be there within a certain timeframe, and every so often, another "missing link" is found that fits our predictions.

That is why Lucy, the australopithecine, was such a sensation.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I believe you made a distinction between tool-use by instinct and tool-use by skills learned through individual communication. It is an important distinction, and as such I may have inferred it in your comments incorrectly. I believe birds building nests and beavers building dams and bees building hives are all behaviors that these animals will do without being taught. The term "hard-wired" is often used to describe this, though I dislike it because it gives connotations that are inaccurate between neural "circuitry" and the circuitry we know from electronics, but it does help people understand the difference between instinct and education. The examples I gave in chimps and dolphins are behaviors that they do not do unless they are shown how by other individuals (presumably one individual discovered the trick by chance and remembered it and taught others).
While there may be a difference between instinctual behaviour and learned behaviour, one has to ask how instinctual behaviour came about, and if there is a real difference or if one leads to the other in a sort of continuum.

Personally I think learned behaviours eventually transform into instinctive behaviours.

Another thing that needs experimental check is if for example the instinctive behaviors of birds to build nests is really instinctive or learned from the parent-birds or other birds by observation and experience. In order to find that out, babie-birds would have to be separated immediately after they were born, in a section of a forest where no other birds are present nor viewable from. The problem would be how to keep the birds alive without their parents, the other problem would be to get the birds to choose each other for reproduction-purpose... not easy.

I think there can be made a difference between animals that are cared for by their parents, who can learn by observing their parents, and animals who immediately after being born have to survive on their own. The latter ones are probably a better example to study instincts and how they came about.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That is a pressing question in neuroscience, and I don't have an answer. Our "advancement" over chimps may be qualitative (we have features they don't have at all), or merely quantitative (we have the same features, but more so); we just don't know.

Like someone already said, chimps and humans are two sidelines that had probably a common ancestor, and not like it's often portrayed that the human is evolved from the chimp.

But I guess that's beside the point, the real question, and we are somehow running around it, without confronting it directly is: Evolution was and is obviously occurring, but is the theory of random changes and natural selection, ie. darwinism, offering the key to its mechanism?



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Conventional wisdom is that they are a separate branch, and there are a lot of good reasons to believe that, but you're right that DNA evidence is now suggesting that there was some small overlap between our lines.
But that's the point, if they could interbreed, they were of the same species and the neanderthals would have been merely another human race.


Taliesin
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I read an interesting piece in New Scientist which tried to estimate what would remain of human civilization if all humans suddenly disappeared:

Imagine Earth without people - life - 12 October 2006 - New Scientist (open access, IFAICT)

"Alien visitors coming to Earth 100,000 years hence will find no obvious signs that an advanced civilisation ever lived here.
...
"Ocean sediment cores will show a brief period during which massive amounts of heavy metals such as mercury were deposited, a relic of our fleeting industrial society. The same sediment band will also show a concentration of radioactive isotopes left by reactor meltdowns after our disappearance. The atmosphere will bear traces of a few gases that don't occur in nature, especially perfluorocarbons such as CF4, which have a half-life of tens of thousands of years. Finally a brief, century-long pulse of radio waves will forever radiate out across the galaxy and beyond, proof - for anything that cares and is able to listen - that we once had something to say and a way to say it.

"But these will be flimsy souvenirs, almost pathetic reminders of a civilisation that once thought itself the pinnacle of achievement. Within a few million years, erosion and possibly another ice age or two will have obliterated most of even these faint traces. If another intelligent species ever evolves on the Earth - and that is by no means certain, given how long life flourished before we came along - it may well have no inkling that we were ever here save for a few peculiar fossils and ossified relics."
Funny, but maybe there would still be our satellites left, preserved in the vacuum of the space around us.

Taliesin
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
But that's the point, if they could interbreed, they were of the same species and the neanderthals would have been merely another human race.
No.

Donkeys and horses are most definitely separate species, and they too can interbreed. The offspring are *usually* sterile - but not always.

Grizzlies and polar bears are definitely separate species, and an example of successful interbreeding was just recently shot by a proud moron hunter.

Another recent case was two separate species of butterflies managing to interbreed into a separate, reproducing species.

Wolves and dogs are separate species but can interbreed.

To be fair, your confusion is understandable, but you're still wrong.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
Funny, but maybe there would still be our satellites left, preserved in the vacuum of the space around us.
Most every man-made orbiting object will have fallen back to earth within a few dozen decades.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Bollocks. You're arguing from ignorance again.

The "specifics" you refer to are in the "how", not the "what".

To use the example that keeps getting mentioned, but that you never respond to: We know from experience and observation that gravity HAPPENS. The theory of gravity describes very accurately what will happen, and what laws it will follow. However, we have pretty much no clue at all HOW gravity itself works. What causes masses to attract each other? It might be God.

Oddly, nobody whatsoever has put forth the idea that the "theory of gravity" is not sufficiently proven, and that "Intelligent Falling" needs to be taught alongside Newton and Einstein.

We actually know a lot more about how evolution works than about how gravity works.
There are a few theories on the subject of gravity and what causes it. Most of them leave room for the theory of ID. Thats another subject though.

Regardless of how much we know about gravity, we still don't have a comprehensive understanding of how evolution works.





This point is an interesting one, but it completely fails to explain why NOBODY is threatened by, for example, the theory of gravity, or energy. Those are extremely detailed and very predictable frameworks, that have reduced "God" to a series of little formulas and variables. Oddly, no pseudo-scientific crackpots are rallying ignorants and picketing Boards of Education over this.

Why? Why are these less "dangerous"?




Evolution IS a rock solid, hard fact. It happens, and there is TONS of evidence for it. There is NO doubt about that in the scientific community.
...

I debated against the use of evolution to disprove other theories such as ID. I've said over and over and over and over (and over?) that evolution is a very plausible theory with a lot of evidence to support it. But there is still much we have yet to learn, and to use "best guess" theories as proven facts to disprove other theories is not "good science."
To say "if theory A is true then theory B cannot be true" is correct, but thats not what is happening in the cases I'm arguing against.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post



The above two statements seem to be contradictory. I suspect the confusion is here:
"If we had such a comprehensive understand of our evolution"
What in tarnation does that mean? Are you distinguishing whether or not we have an understanding sufficient to say (beyond reasonable doubt, or in your words, "proven") that humans evolved from apes? That's really the only context I can put it in, as the "missing links" were between humans and apes. But you later accept that the human-ape connection is in your words "proven."
No, in your words...evorped. With a probability less than one (assumed greater than 0).

How did you manage to confuse your own made up words with my words?


What I'm trying to say is that if we knew exactly how evolution worked we would be able to interpolate with great accuracy those missing links based on what we evolved from and what we evolved into.

"the way we understand evolution?" that's an annoyingly vague phrase. As stated, under a normal understanding of the English language, it should exclude alternate theories which contradict evolution, but somehow I think you mean it to include "we don't know **** about ****," as that is your stated thesis.

So let's have it, plain and simple. Are you talking about "specifics" large enough to include ideas contradictory to evolution, or only as things small enough that they have no bearing on the Evolution/ID/FSM/other debate?
[/quote]

What i've tried to explain is that until we know those specifics (or the probable outcomes for those specifics) we will not know how they affect the way we understand evoltuion.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Most every man-made orbiting object will have fallen back to earth within a few dozen decades.
So, possibly the only remaining evidence of humans would be the junk we've left on the Moon or shot out into deep space.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Jan 4, 2007 at 03:40 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What I'm trying to say is that if we knew exactly how evolution worked we would be able to interpolate with great accuracy those missing links based on what we evolved from and what we evolved into.
Does the appearance of Lucy not suggest that we are, to some degree, able to interpolate those missing links based on what we evolved from and what we evolved into?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What i've tried to explain is that until we know those specifics (or the probable outcomes for those specifics) we will not know how they affect the way we understand evoltuion.
But, even if we don't know exactly how evolution works, what does that have to do with Intelligent Design?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Two things here crudely;

- "what" we see and...
- "how" what we see, is.

Proponents of ID are fixated on the "what" we see. What do they see? Deliberation, coding, engineering, and design.

Proponents of evolution assume the nature of "what" for the sake of brevity and advancement in the interest of "how".

For example (again crudely)...

Evolution proponent; "yeah, that's a cool little micro-machine, but how did it evolve to this state?

ID proponents; "but wait a minute, it's a cool little micro-machine?"
This is interesting. It's similar to biologists who say "this wing bone looks like this arm bone, and this bat wing doesn't look like this butterfly wing." I guess I've never really had much interest in taxonomy or its step-sister archaeology.

Anyway, neither of your descriptions there are very scientific. Scientific questions about "micro-machines" are testable, like "how does this ligand bind to or alter this enzyme?" Or "what effect does removing this enzyme have on the cell?" This has the effect of removing the bias.


True and while you might not be able to definitively state "who" did it, it is relatively safe to assume the paint cans did not pry themselves open, raise themselves to the canvas, and begin splashing.
Ok, but for this to be analogous to the debate, there is a perfectly plausible explanation for how it got this way without intelligent agents. For example, there are paint cans on shelves near the canvas, the colors on the canvas are from cans which are scattered around, and their lids are bent in a way consistent with the cans falling off the shelf and breaking open. Also, there is a perfectly plausible method for the spilled paint to continue to accrue on the canvas (experimental evolution results), such as more other paint cans having loose lids already, and some being on their sides, on the shelf, slowly dripping/splashing paint drops onto the canvas.

If the argument is whether or not an intelligent agency was involved (not withstanding the apparently sloppy outcome), one could safely assume someone did this.
You could, but I wouldn't say it's the logical conclusion, and I wouldn't go so far as to say "safely," which to my mind implies that there is little risk of being wrong in your assumption. Not if there is a perfectly plausible explanation for accident, as well as no suspects, and not that I quite see how this last relates back to evolution: no motive (if it was for art, wouldn't the artist have taken the "painting" with him?).


Again, the "who" is intriguing, but is generally considered outside the realm of science. Even proponents of ID back-peddle with regard to "who" for this fact. ID proponents (regardless of bias and in many respects, empirical science) are simply trying to imply design over purely natural phenomena.
I generally agree with the "who" being irrelevant. The only time I bring it up is to illustrate the irrelevance of "where did the first cell come from?" Of course, this rarely works, because the people who ask this are rarely open-minded enough to see the comparison.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
While there may be a difference between instinctual behaviour and learned behaviour, one has to ask how instinctual behaviour came about, and if there is a real difference or if one leads to the other in a sort of continuum.

Personally I think learned behaviours eventually transform into instinctive behaviours.
I disagree. I don't think there is any mechanism for this to happen, and furthermore it smacks of classica Lamarckism (such as giraffe's necks are long due to generations of stretching them in order to reach the tallest branches), which was disproven long ago.

The more likely reason is that instinctual behaviors arose by chance as they are (instinctual) and were selected for (or against), and were never conscious. Sneezing is a good example; no one teaches you how to sneeze, and in fact I don't think it's possible to do it through will alone. It is something our body does without interference.

Another thing that needs experimental check is if for example the instinctive behaviors of birds to build nests is really instinctive or learned from the parent-birds or other birds by observation and experience. In order to find that out, babie-birds would have to be separated immediately after they were born, in a section of a forest where no other birds are present nor viewable from. The problem would be how to keep the birds alive without their parents, the other problem would be to get the birds to choose each other for reproduction-purpose... not easy.
I would be surprised if this has not been done, in a lab not a forest of course. One significant and related sub-area of neuroscience studies bird-song as a model for learning. Bird-song is very highly stereotyped, and when birds are raised without having heard their own species' song, they still sing a similar one but it is warped. If the bird is deafened at birth so it can't even hear it's own song, the result is even worse. This shows that there is a significant instinctual aspect of the song, both calling it and knowing what it "should" sound like, but it also is modulated by experience and practice.

I think there can be made a difference between animals that are cared for by their parents, who can learn by observing their parents, and animals who immediately after being born have to survive on their own. The latter ones are probably a better example to study instincts and how they came about.
Rest assured, there is extensive literature devoted to experiments on the latter. If you want I can find some papers as examples.


Like someone already said, chimps and humans are two sidelines that had probably a common ancestor, and not like it's often portrayed that the human is evolved from the chimp.

But I guess that's beside the point,
Yes, and yes.

Evolution was and is obviously occurring, but is the theory of random changes and natural selection, ie. darwinism, offering the key to its mechanism?
The evidence supports this in a number of ways. Are you asking or telling?


But that's the point, if they could interbreed, they were of the same species and the neanderthals would have been merely another human race.
Covered already, but in short the classical species boundary of interbreeding only works when you're talking about existing, sexually reproducing species. It gets far more subtle when you move outside those restrictions.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There are a few theories on the subject of gravity and what causes it. Most of them leave room for the theory of ID.
So does evolution, especially since your "ID" is not the Discovery Institute's "ID." The big question to you is, why are you singling out evolution?

Regardless of how much we know about gravity, we still don't have a comprehensive understanding of how evolution works.
You totally and utterly missed the point. The point is we *DON'T* know any more about gravity than we know about evolution. The big question to you is, why are you singling out evolution?


I debated against the use of evolution to disprove other theories such as ID.
It doesn't disprove other theories, and it hasn't been used that way. What it disproves is the assertion that ID (as science) is "valid," "scientific," or "as good as anything else."

To say "if theory A is true then theory B cannot be true" is correct, but thats not what is happening in the cases I'm arguing against.
What about "if theory A is supported and theory B is not even a theory because it has not been tested in any way and also cannot be tested, then theory B will not be taught as a theory"? That's all that's going on.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, in your words...evorped. With a probability less than one (assumed greater than 0).
Good lord, do you read anything?

"with the understanding that evorp means to a less-than-one probability which to your mind satisfies "proven.""

Ok, I'll try again from scratch.

This chromosome fusion evidence proves (in your use of the word) that we evolved from apes. How can you argue that it is not proven (in your use of the word) in light of this evidence, and furthermore what better evidence could ever be gathered that would make you say that it is proven?

"the way we understand evolution?" that's an annoyingly vague phrase. As stated, under a normal understanding of the English language, it should exclude alternate theories which contradict evolution, but somehow I think you mean it to include "we don't know **** about ****," as that is your stated thesis.

So let's have it, plain and simple. Are you talking about "specifics" large enough to include ideas contradictory to evolution, or only as things small enough that they have no bearing on the Evolution/ID/FSM/other debate?
What i've tried to explain is that until we know those specifics (or the probable outcomes for those specifics) we will not know how they affect the way we understand evoltuion.
"the way we understand evolution?" that's an annoyingly vague phrase. As stated, under a normal understanding of the English language, it should exclude alternate theories which contradict evolution, but somehow I think you mean it to include "we don't know **** about ****," as that is your stated thesis.

So let's have it, plain and simple. Are you talking about "specifics" large enough to include ideas contradictory to evolution, or only as things small enough that they have no bearing on the Evolution/ID/FSM/other debate?

whoa, déja vu. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "SPECIFICS?" Under the standard definition of "specifics," what you just said is meaningless to any debate over evolution vs any contradictory idea. Is that what you meant?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, possibly the only remaining evidence of humans would be the junk we've left on the Moon or shot out into deep space.
And radio transmissions (deeper space) and probably a thin strata on earth of higher radio-isotope ratio, kind of like the one we generally ascribe to the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. I wonder if the dinosaurs were actually wiped out by their own nuclear technology...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
To say "if theory A is true then theory B cannot be true" is correct, but thats not what is happening in the cases I'm arguing against.
After thinking about it, your entire misconception may stem from this nugget.

No one says that ID (or any other creation-a-like) is bad science because evolution is true. They say ID is bad science because it's not scientific. Scientific ideas have to account for all of the available evidence. ID fails to account for much of the evidence, evidence which supports evolution. This might be where you get confused. Evidence which supports evolution is not part of evolution. The evidence still exists whether or not evolution does, regardless of whether the evidence was gathered in pursuit of evolution or what its initial interpretation was. This evidence condemns ID because ID can't account for it, but evolution has nothing to do with that.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2007, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
After thinking about it, your entire misconception may stem from this nugget.

No one says that ID (or any other creation-a-like) is bad science because evolution is true. They say ID is bad science because it's not scientific. Scientific ideas have to account for all of the available evidence. ID fails to account for much of the evidence, evidence which supports evolution. This might be where you get confused. Evidence which supports evolution is not part of evolution. The evidence still exists whether or not evolution does, regardless of whether the evidence was gathered in pursuit of evolution or what its initial interpretation was. This evidence condemns ID because ID can't account for it, but evolution has nothing to do with that.
QFT™.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2007, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Anyway, neither of your descriptions there are very scientific.
Of course not Uncle, they weren't supposed to be. That's why I used the word "crudely" twice.

Scientific questions about "micro-machines" are testable, like "how does this ligand bind to or alter this enzyme?" Or "what effect does removing this enzyme have on the cell?" This has the effect of removing the bias.
The difference is one of focus as mentioned before. I believe proponents of ID are fixated on the "what" to such a degree that the "how" does not seem a plausible mechanism for such an amazing "what". For this reason, one enjoys advancement and the other does not.

Ok, but for this to be analogous to the debate, there is a perfectly plausible explanation for how it got this way without intelligent agents. For example, there are paint cans on shelves near the canvas, the colors on the canvas are from cans which are scattered around, and their lids are bent in a way consistent with the cans falling off the shelf and breaking open. Also, there is a perfectly plausible method for the spilled paint to continue to accrue on the canvas (experimental evolution results), such as more other paint cans having loose lids already, and some being on their sides, on the shelf, slowly dripping/splashing paint drops onto the canvas.
What you're describing appears to be an accident of sorts. I'm personally not much for the analogy in the first place seeing as how the shelves, cans, and canvas are all the result of an intelligent agency in the first place not to mention the numerous questions this raises. Is there evidence that the shelving is unstable? Did wind cause this calamity? What klutz left their paint cans on an unstable shelf next to their canvas? Now, to the possibilities.

You could, but I wouldn't say it's the logical conclusion, and I wouldn't go so far as to say "safely," which to my mind implies that there is little risk of being wrong in your assumption. Not if there is a perfectly plausible explanation for accident, as well as no suspects, and not that I quite see how this last relates back to evolution: no motive (if it was for art, wouldn't the artist have taken the "painting" with him?).
No, but don't you think if a group of people were investigating the scene, they may have a varying degree of opinions and curiosity on the matter? Don't you think there will be a segment of that group looking for an explanation other than, "the cans were sitting on the shelves when they all of a sudden convulsed into the calamity we witness here?" If there's also no evidence of unstable shelving, why assume it was a purely accidental event? Is it possible that someone came in and violently kicked the shelving? Again, this is a piss-poor analogy in my opinion because I agree, it seems to have nothing to do with evolution. What proponents of ID are saying is that if you're investigating this event, and you exclude the possibility of an intelligent agency, you're not giving yourself an opportunity at viewing the entire picture. To be clear, in your analogy you're stating there is no evidence of an intelligent agency, but there also seems to be little to explain the calamity in a purely accidental sense either. This is the difference. If the "what" appears complex enough to invoke an intelligent agency, no purely natural "how" will suffice in overcoming the presuppositions of the ID proponent.

I generally agree with the "who" being irrelevant. The only time I bring it up is to illustrate the irrelevance of "where did the first cell come from?" Of course, this rarely works, because the people who ask this are rarely open-minded enough to see the comparison.
The question; "where did the first cell come from?" seems to suggest that the ID story is designed to fill gaps in evolution theory. Notably, origins. IMO, this is ironic for several reasons including the fact that most proponents of ID are not accepting enough (nor in many cases knowledgeable enough) of evolution to attempt filling gaps in the theory and spend far more time attacking evolution than addressing what evolution does not, origins. Lest you forget however, this is a political forum and you are encountering the opinionated. As I've said before, bias runs deep among the opinionated and what is rare in this discussion is a true interest in science.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2007, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The question; "where did the first cell come from?" seems to suggest that the ID story is designed to fill gaps in evolution theory. Notably, origins.
That isn't a "gap" in evolution theory. Evolution theory doesn't cover the "spark of life". It's equally as much a "gap" in quantum theory, or in radiation theory, or in neurological theory, or in psychology.

Why is the fact that things haven't always looked exactly the way they do now, but follow the same set of laws they have been since the beginning of time, so much harder to accept in evolution than in physics?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2007, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
That isn't a "gap" in evolution theory. Evolution theory doesn't cover the "spark of life". It's equally as much a "gap" in quantum theory, or in radiation theory, or in neurological theory, or in psychology.
I thought it was a fair assessment, and I'd say origins is a gap in quantum theory too. Not one that threatens quantum theory, or evolution, but the question is begged. Just the like question of where God (oops, Designer) came from in the ID explanation of life. It doesn't need to be addressed in order for the idea to work, but it certainly is an obvious addendum.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2