Vanderzyden

Both.

The interpretation of the phenonmena is heavily influenced by one's presuppositions. In the case of the typical Darwinist, the collection of presuppositions amounts to full-bore naturalism. This is the philosophy to which I am perpetually referring.

The phenomena is presented as evidence. However, there is no evidence without an explanation (interpretation). Do you agree?

It would appear from a large portion of contemporary scientific literature that the naturalist only views the phenomena through one primary filter: there is no designer--none at all.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

This is a good example of why I do not rely upon talkorigins for much of anything. The first paragraph makes no argument whatsoever, but is merely the same old tired assertions. There is no demonstrable mechanism for evolution (uncorrobated chromosomal fusion studies withstanding). It is all speculation. That is why it is often called the Grand Evolutionary Myth.

Regarding gravity, Einstein tried to reformulate gravitational laws. In fact, he was trying to prove Newton wrong! Quantum theory seems to have come no further than Einstein, and is equally confusing (but fascinating, as I'm sure Skeptical would agree).

I still maintain that there is not even a faint comparison. The law of gravity is observed all the time, has been repeatedly verified to a high degree of accuracy, and underlies many, many technologies. Macroevolution is presently only a fantastical idea.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Mutation equations? Surely you realize that mutations aren't beneficial.

Yes, I am aware of your thread. When I am able, I would like to examine the claims.

Vanderzyden

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

Vanderzyden

I am not asking for us to get into a religious discussion, but I must clarify something here. You continually set up this dilemma between God and Satan as the causal entities. So, I have questions?

-- From where do we get our concepts of God and Satan?

-- In contrast: since I have never paid them any attention, I need you to tell me from where do you get your ideas of leprachauns, unicorns, and pixies?

Vanderzyden

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

monkenstick

it was merely an example of some equations which describe evolutionary processes vander, I could direct you to this particular journal;

<a href="http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00028/" target="_blank">http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00028/</a>

I don't even pretend to understand the maths behind this stuff, I doubt it will mean much to you either.

Starboy

I agree with everything you say. That is the way it is done in all sciences including physics. Experiment and observation are interpreted with theory, and theory confirms experiment and observation. All disagreements or questions regarding theory and its interpretation are resolved by nature, specifically by further experiment and observation. This is how science is done. Do you have a problem with this? Why do you call this philosophy? What definition of philosophy do you use?

Starboy

Coragyps

VZ: Van, I realize that you don't want to give out much information about yourself, but just this once, grant me this one little datum:

Are you lactose-tolerant?

mfaber

This is quite wrong as exemplified by the following...................

• 1. A RARE PROTEIN MUTATION OFFERS NEW HOPE FOR HEART DISEASE PATIENTS
  <a href="http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-Milano-Bielicki.html" target="_blank">http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-Milano-Bielicki.html</a>
  
  ---"Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered the mechanism by which an extremely rare protein mutation shields people from cardiovascular disease. The discovery could lead to more potent drug therapies that both target cholesterol deposition and prevent future accumulation."
• 2. BENEFICIAL MUTATION IN ESTROGEN RECEPTOR
  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1897164.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1897164.stm</a>
  
  ---"women who took HRT who had a common mutation in the oestrogen receptor alpha gene had dramatic increases in good cholesterol."
• 3. ADDITIONAL BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS HERE
  <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html" target="_blank">http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html</a>
• 4.Human and Fly Studies Tally Good and Bad Mutations, Stress Ongoing Role of Natural Selection (the mechanics of the selection operating on these)
  <a href="http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2002/20020227-evolve.html" target="_blank">http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2002/20020227-evolve.html</a>
  
  ----"They found that competitive pressures were shaping about one out of four genes. Thirty-four of the 45 genes, or about 75 percent, showed no sign of natural selection. But, 11 genes, or about 25 percent showed evidence of ongoing rapid evolution. These genes contribute disproportionately to the total number of changes, says Wu.
  
  Most of these genes, note the authors, are involved in processes such as disease resistance or sexual reproduction, areas where there is "continually room for improvement"
  
  ------a) What is the genetic basis of evolutionary change? What forces cause different species to evolve? (Easier to digest magazine article)
  <a href="http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0206/research/invest-zone.html" target="_blank">http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0206/research/invest-zone.html</a>
  
  ------b)Postive and Negative Selection in the Human Genome (technical mathematical model)
  <a href="http://intl.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/158/3/1227.pdf" target="_blank">http://intl.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/158/3/1227.pdf</a>

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

scigirl

No, the same old correct assertions. Descent with modification happened - get over it! Now. . . maybe RM and NS is not the cause, or the only cause, of that descent. Maybe God did it - who knows? Nearly every educated scientist - including intelligent design advocates - accept that descent happened. We just bicker about HOW.

I won't argue that point, since physics is not my field. However, you proved MY point even more. We agree that gravity exists - right? However, nobody knows why. Newton didn't know why, and neither does anyone else. I have a feeling that we have more ideas about why it exists than Newton did, but we still don't fully understand why g is g, and why the formula is the way it is.

Early christians objected to Newton's theory because it supposedly took away power from God. They rejected gravity itself, as well as the evidence that Newton came up with.

Nowadays, I don't think most Christians reject gravity. But more importantly, I don't think that most Christians imagine God physically holding up the planets and moving them around. They too realize that, well, science works. And there's probably a non-god explanation as to why on earth g = 9.8 m/s/s.

Now let's return to evolution. Not everybody even accepts descent with modification, despite the abundant fossil and genetic evidence (we aren't talking mechanisms here, just the apparent similarities ok!). These people are analogous to the early Christians who rejected the existence of gravity. Very extreme YECS fall into this category - such as those who believe that scientists fabricated the data, or that Satan put fossils in the earth to confuse us! I hope someday soon they will realize this, and we can add them to the list of "Wow look what those people used to believe, weird huh!"

Ok, now we have everybody else - people that at least accept the data for what it is - evidence of descent with modification. Some people think that there's a science explanation, some people think there is a supernatural one (I put you in this category). So all the scientists need to do is to come up with a coherent theory of how macroevolution occured, and provide that evidence. Then we can all go home and watch "Friends" and be happy. Right?

Well, wrong. We have reached an impasse - because people who don't accept macroevolution don't do it because of a lack of evidence. They do it because of religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter that there is abundant evidence of major genetic modifications that occured throughout the genomes of animals. It doesn't matter that chromosomes fused, or split, or that many many genes were duplicated in our genome. Why doesn't it matter? Because you have rejected evolution for reasons other than scientific data. Therefore scientific data will not bring you back - you will find any excuse to deny that data: "The scientists are biased." "The scientists use weasel words."

So why are we trying? I honestly have no idea.

You still don't understand my analogy. We have NO IDEA HOW GRAVITY WORKS yet people still believe that there is a natural explanation for it. Or do they? Do you think that gravity works because God every day is moving things around, but just happens to do that at a constant strength? Do you? If not, why not?

We, however, DO have ideas about how descent with modification works, and we DO have some evidence to back it up. Gene duplications, genome duplications, chromosome fusions, chromosome splits, etc, etc, etc. These phenomoenon have been proved over and over in the lab, and sequence data after sequence data also shows evidence that these events occured in many splits off the evolutionary tree.

Why is it ok to believe that there is a scientific explanation for gravity, but not for evolution? There is no logical or rational reason to accept the former but deny the latter.

It is because your bible tells you to. I have no doubt in my mind that if the first book of Genesis read, "And god made the moon revolve around the sun by using invisible glue" that some christians would be here denying the existence of gravity. In which case, Vanderzyden's comment might read:

"I still maintain that there is not even a faint comparison. The law of evolution is observed all the time, has been repeatedly verified to a high degree of accuracy, and underlies many, many principles in biology. Gravity is presently only a fantastical idea."


scigirl

S2Focus

No -- what you have observed is "microgravity". Microgravity is responsible for causing objects to fall straight to the ground when you drop them. The notion that you can extrapolate this concept of "microgravity" to explain the orbital motion of planets around the sun is just plain silly. Macrogravity, which allegedly governs planetary motion is presently only a "fantastical" idea. Microgravity induces straight-line motion of objects to the ground. But planets follow elliptical paths in their orbits; they do not move in the straight-line motion resulting from the effects of "microgravity".

Microgravity can be demonstrated repeatedly in laboratory experiments; macrogravity cannot. Your faith in the theory of macrogravity is nothing more than unfounded religious faith.

If you dispute this, then please provide irrefutable proof that the force of gravity that causes apples to fall in a straight line to the ground is also responsible for the elliptical orbital motion of planets around the sun.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>