Droxyn

Response to WWSD.

SEEM to be is the key word. I am not offering these as a solution to an incomplete theory. My point is that if enough holes exist in the theory, there comes a point where an honest, scientific thinker has to re-evaluate the credence they lend to that theory. Whether they jump to a different version of the theory, a new theory altogether, or a particular religious worldiew's understanding for the diversity of life is not important to me at this point.

Well done WWSD, you've constructed an argument you cant lose. I have a question for you. Explain how the first life forms to come on land eventually became humans without resorting to "natural selection acting on random mutations." I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to be a wisenheimer. I understand that random mutations and natural selection are observable and the fall of man and Satan are not (I bet you could find a WHOLE LOT of people that would argue the Satan one though) but those observed processes have never produced an observed species change. I also understand that observing a species change is also highly unlikely due to the amount of time it takes and the gradual change that supposedly takes place. So we did not observe the fall of man, but IF IT DID happen, it explains what we see with parasites etc, and reconciles the problem with God being a meany.

So does this mean to imply that at one point you did believe in God, and then he didn't pull through for you, and now you don't believe in him? Was that the only reason why you decided not to believe in him or was it just the last straw? Or did you never really believe but one particular time you were REALLY desperate? I would never try to evaluate your attempted relationship with God, I think it is interesting that you tried though. Obviously I don't know the particulars of your situation but I know in my life, God has answered my prayers in ways that I either didn't want or didn't expect. Other times His timing wasn't to my liking but it still happened. Its easier to discuss issues such as this with people that believe because there is at least a point of reference.

RufusAtticus

And what holes would you be thinking of in the theory of evolution?

~~RvFvS~~

Droxyn

OK, now a response for the ever-present and distinguished Hez.

I think Richard Dawkins does... but thats just an opinion. I only put it like that Hez because whenever evolution is questioned by anyone, it seems that people come snarling out of the woodwork in defense of it. A biology teacher in Washington, I believe, was attacked..perhaps to strong a word...approached by the ACLU because he was teaching ID. Fair enough. Then his principle would not allow him to distribute articles from "The Scientist" and "Scientific American" about not using the peppered moths and the "life in a test tube" experiment as evidence for evolution. He wanted to show his students these things because they were still taught in the texbook he was using. Whats up with that. Things like that make me choose the word revere.
So would I be safe in assuming that any problem I come across about evolution that is on a creationist's website is automatically false? I must be a moron, because I think that evolution falls flat on its face when it comes to describing the development of systems with many interdependent parts. Maybe this is one of the problems you were refering to earlier.. I dunno. It just baffles me how anyone can buy that random mutations and natural selection give rise to the functions inside a cell. Almost any function in there requires all pieces and information to be there already for it to work. I'm admittidly out of my league with cell biology however.

Oh boy. This would require a dissertation that I don't have time for at the moment. Whether it is or is not, many people use it as one. I'll leave it at that for now.
It's simply what most people believe, or are led to believe happened in nature. Remember, there is no argument here that natural selection or random mutations are not going on now. The argument is that bears will never be anything but bears..no matter how much time we give them. Thats my hypothesis, now we'll wait several million years to test it. Then we have to repeat it. ( I don't think my 401K will last this long)

Well, if I could watch a show on the discovery channel about....anything animal related and have them not mention evolution, I would agree with you. Biology ,the study of living things. Evolution always seems to naturally spring up whenever biology is on TV or in articles. It should't automatically proceed from biology... but it always seems to. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary defines biology as: The science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, often especially with reference to origin growth, reproduction, and structure.

Very impressive phrase. If my limited capacity serves me well, the mistake you are warning me of is saying that evolution includes not only the development of life but the origin of life as well. If this is the case, fear not. I understand that evolution does not touch on where life came from in the first place. I indeed meant naturalism in its broadest term. If there is no supernatural, then naturalism is all you've got. Of course, I'm probably missing some other wacky philosophy. Maybe we're not really here at all !! When I said evolution has all the answers, I only meant it in the realm that evolution falls. You would agree that evolution has all the answers as far has the diversity of life on our planet correct? Regardless of whether we've found them yet or not. Or would you just assert that evolution has provided the best answers to date and has good potential to continue?
OK, I must go now, Duvenoy is next..promise!

WWSD

Hi Droxyn,

You said:
SEEM to be is the key word. I am not offering these as a solution to an incomplete theory. My point is that if enough holes exist in the theory, there comes a point where an honest, scientific thinker has to re-evaluate the credence they lend to that theory. Whether they jump to a different version of the theory, a new theory altogether, or a particular religious worldiew's understanding for the diversity of life is not important to me at this point.

You're correct, seems is the key word. And you are correct about a theory needing modification when data don't fit. However, creation is non-quantifiable. There is no way to measure the length of the creator's arm. Furthermore, creation doesn't help us to predict the future behavior of the universe. A good theory should provide accurate predictions. Creation does not predict anything. It is a be all end all explaination. God did it and that's it.
While you might say that evolution does not offer observable predictions, I say it can. And I say that the actual effect of evolution can be seen in nature at this moment. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=102000 79&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Interesting article.</a>

Indeed, when a theory no longer fits the evidence (classical physics) it must change (modern physics) but we must stay within the realm of science and not resort to mysterious forces such as gods. Thus, if you are going to offer an alternative to the current theory of evolution, it should be reasonable and within the reach of experiment and observation.

you've constructed an argument you cant lose.

When I ask how it is that parasites arose through creation or ID, the "fall of man" and "satan" answers lead one nowhere in the debate. It's hand waving at its best.
In effect, I have constructed a solid argument against ID or creation being a mechanism of your god or any other benevolent god. Citing the fall of man is just about as good as saying "I just know." It explains nothing.
If you'd like, you can start a thread elsewhere and discuss the holes in the "fall of man" or "satan" theories for the current state of reality. That would pretty much detail why these are not acceptable answers to the question of why parasites were created.
You also could have said "god left evolution to itself and only stopped in once in a while to shove it in the direction of humans." This would leave the parasites to evolve on thier own regardless of the creator's intentions.


I have a question for you. Explain how the first life forms to come on land eventually became humans without resorting to "natural selection acting on random mutations." I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to be a wisenheimer.

It's ok Droxyn, I can handle a little good natured wiseassedness. At least you're civil and not resorting to name calling.

So, alternative explaination to...Hmmm...

OK, space aliens.
It's an explaination that doesn't resort to natural selction and random mutations.
It's plausible, and if you would have me accept the remote possibility of a creator creating humnas, I would ask that you accept the remote possibility of space aliens creating humans. BTW, ever read H.P. Lovecraft? Specifically "At the Mountains of Madness."

Anyway, my space alien theory has the same problems as creation.
Its a non-theory, you can't do anything with it besides pointing at it as a reason for something being.

The problem here, and I've seen it pointed out numerous times, is that the past is not observable. You say so yourself. However, as I said above, a theory should provide a framework that allows one to make predictions and to observe nature to see if those predictions are correct. Where does my space alien theory leave us?

Contrast that with natural selection and random mutation. It already has supporting evidence and we can use it to explain data that we collect.
Then we can look at the world and try to make predictions based on our theories.

I understand that random mutations and natural selection are observable and the fall of man and Satan are not (I bet you could find a WHOLE LOT of people that would argue the Satan one though) but those observed processes have never produced an observed species change.

Check out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" target="_blank">this link.</a>

There are more links like that above in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000911&p=3" target="_blank">this thread.</a> Specifically on page 3.

Without using evolution as a theory, many people's research would disappear as unfounded. Some of my own would seem unlikely.

How would I explain the conservation of enhancer region sequence between Act79B in D. melanogaster and ActD1 in D. virilis. I don't think any peer review journal would accept "god made them that way" as a good explaination.

Evolution would predict that important parts of a gene should be conserved over time, and that is what I see what I compare sequences.

As for observing Satan, I work with her. She claims to be Catholic if you can believe it.


I also understand that observing a species change is also highly unlikely due to the amount of time it takes and the gradual change that supposedly takes place. So we did not observe the fall of man, but IF IT DID happen, it explains what we see with parasites etc, and reconciles the problem with God being a meany.


But, in essence, the fall of man would not reconcile god's meanness. IMO it's an issue of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. However, that is another topic altogether and one that is quite far from E/C.



So does this mean to imply that at one point you did believe in God, and then he didn't pull through for you, and now you don't believe in him?


That was part of it. My education was another part. As well as reading the bible and considering my various problems with xtianity.


Was that the only reason why you decided not to believe in him or was it just the last straw?


Interesting use of words "decided to"
It was not a decision, it was a conclusion I came to. I'm a skeptic, and a scientist. I looked at the evidence for and against a god or gods and my faith eroded away to nothing.
There's a key difference between decisions and conclusions.

But, as you put it, the non-answer was the "last straw."
I had come to a painful conclusion in my life, one where there was no benign all loving being watching over me. So I asked for help.
There was none. I did not ask to be healed, or to find my wallet, or for anything else but peace and piece of mind. I got wind and chamisa bush pollen.

Or did you never really believe but one particular time you were REALLY desperate?

Yes, I was desparate. I teetered on the edge of non-belief for quite some time, trying to fit a god into the universe that was slowly being unraveled to me through my education.
The more I looked at what was in the observable universe and what god was supposed to be, the more I realized that the being described to me by xtianity was implausable.
It is a painful and frightening experience. Very frightening indeed. Eventually I read about other religions, having abandoned xtianity. I thought perhaps that god was something other than the strange being described to me in the bible.
I became interested in eastern philospophy and that is about the cosest I have been to becoming religious since.


I would never try to evaluate your attempted relationship with God, I think it is interesting that you tried though.

Many have tried, many have failed. Satan told me I'd be Catholic again someday. Satan being the woman I work with. Can you tell that I don't like her?

It's always the same as well, "you didn't try hard enough, you didn't read the bibe with an open mind, etc etc..."

They are excuses that don't hold water when scrutinized under the light of reason. No one but myself can really know what I went through.

In any case, I have resolved my issues and I live a contented life.


Edited to fix link.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: WWSD ]

Edited to add:

Droxyn said:
I'm admittidly out of my league with cell biology however.


I'm very familiar with cell biology, in fact, I'm getting my PhD in molecular biology.



[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: WWSD ]

Edited for unforgivable typoooossosossoss

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: WWSD ]

Edited to fix links--scigirl

[ July 07, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

lpetrich

I think that there is more to be said about these.

The "fall of man" does not explain anything before the emergence of Homo sapiens (sapiens), unless it had somehow been retroactive to an extreme degree. Carnivory, one supposed result of the "fall", has been around since the early Cambrian; there are some trilobite fossils from back then with evidence of Anomalocaris bites.

And about Satan, the idea of wicked intelligent design is rather amusing. But that does not stop "intelligent design" from being a hypothesis that can explain potentially anything, and therefore really nothing.

What would you prefer, O Droxyn? The hypothesis that extraterrestrial visitors had stopped off at the Earth and done some genetic engineering off and on over the last 400 million years?

But that does not explain all the evidence of carnivory in the fossil record, including some that some of our more recent ancestors had been victim of, such as the Australopithecus skulls at Sterkfontein from ~2 million years back with tooth marks that precisely match leopard teeth.

What's wrong with discovering that a supposedly omnipotent being had not delivered really strong evidence of Its existence? Something like picking you up and carrying you to great heights?

If one casts one's net wide enough, one can catch anything. If one's criteria are wide enough, then it's easy to find evidence of prayer fulfillment. The problem here is falsifiability -- what would be evidence of non-fulfillment of prayer?

Vorkosigan

Okay..., but, um, all this disproving one not proving the other... Isn't it the basis of the whole Popperian view of science that you cannot prove things, only disprove them...?

Popper's pioneering work has largely been superseded and expanded. See the work of people like Duhem, Lakatos, Giere, and others.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I must be a moron, because I think that evolution falls flat on its face when it comes to describing the development of systems with many interdependent parts.

You may think that, but until you have actual evidence and arguments, rather than mere discomfort, you will get nowhere. Common descent is a fact recognized in the 18th century; even if you trash RM&NS you will still be stuck accounting for the fact that organisms are closely related to one another. The DNA makes this irrefutable. The only out is Last Thursdayism: the Canaanite Sky God created everything with the appearance of age and common descent.

Maybe this is one of the problems you were refering to earlier.. I dunno. It just baffles me how anyone can buy that random mutations and natural selection give rise to the functions inside a cell.

It may baffle you; as you say below, that may be the result of ignorance on your part. Certainly people who are intimately familiar with cellular biology are overwhelmingly evolutionists. Why do you think that is? What information do you have that they do not?

Almost any function in there requires all pieces and information to be there already for it to work.

You bet. The pieces evolved. The fallacy here is the teleological assumption: that a certain system or organ evolved to perform the function it currently does. Much can be explained if you give up that assumption. Instead, you should see the multitudinous parts of organisms as performing functions they were not originally built for, but were instead adapted to by selection over time.

Just look at the various adaptations of the mammalian body plan -- wings on a bat are flippers on a whale are hands on a human are paws on a bear. Yet, ultimately, that limb is descended from an 8-digited ancestral fish that had a fin. All of these different shapes were created by natural selection operating on genetic variation.

I'm admittidly out of my league with cell biology however.

So why not crack open a good textbook and read?

Evolution isn't a "worldview." It's simply what happens in nature.

D: Oh boy. This would require a dissertation that I don't have time for at the moment. Whether it is or is not, many people use it as one. I'll leave it at that for now.

Nobody uses evolution as a worldview. It is just a description of what happens in nature. Evolution makes no moral, epistemological, ontological or other claims. It does refute certain religious claims, but that in itself does not make it a worldview.

It's simply what most people believe, or are led to believe happened in nature. Remember, there is no argument here that natural selection or random mutations are not going on now. The argument is that bears will never be anything but bears..no matter how much time we give them.

Obviously that is not the case, as the fossils show. There is no mechanism that conserves species inside some hypothetical boundary. And your term "bears" is meaningless. Can you give us a term that is better defined? What is a "kind?" How do we recognize it?

Thats my hypothesis, now we'll wait several million years to test it. Then we have to repeat it.

We've got the millions of years already, stored in the fossil record.

Let's talk about DNA:

First, I am sure that you would agree that if a baby had your DNA, then it was your kid. In other words, if you were the subject of paternity suit, I doubt you'd tell the judge that genetic affinity is irrelevant because you and the baby are separate creations. So you accept that common DNA = common descent.

Now, a wonderful thing happened a while back. <a href="http://www.pro-am.com/origins/news/article22.html" target="_blank"> A 9000 year old skeleton was linked by DNA to living person </a>. I assume you would again agree with that analysis. If not, I'd like to know why.

Again, accepting the principle that common DNA = common descent, do you accept that neandertals, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal000328.html" target="_blank">whose mitochondrial DNA is close to ours</a> are related to humans? If not, why not?

Again, accepting the principle that common DNA = common descent, do you accept that chimps, gorillas and humans share a common ancestor in the past as all who have studied the matter maintain? If not, why not?

It baffles me that anyone would accept DNA results in a crime investigation or paternity test would suddenly reject them if they group humans with chimps and other apes.

Vorkosigan