Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2007, 08:09:51 AM
Post by: zahc on February 02, 2007, 10:15:08 AM
There. That's my input.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 10:15:52 AM
A deity cannot simultaneously be GOOD and COMPETENT if the best he/she/it could produce was Homo Sapiens.
Post by: Cromlech on February 02, 2007, 10:40:52 AM
Quote
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
Quote
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html
Post by: Tallpine on February 02, 2007, 10:51:06 AM
For example: an eye. Sure, there are more primitive versions of eyes - but any lump of tissue is going to have to work pretty well as a vision device before it has any evolutionary advantage. Or transitioning to/from a wing/flipper/arm - anything in between is a handicap rather than an advantage.
I recently read an article that claimed the above type objections were no longer an issue, but then presented no new evidence to explain how such things could come to be. They basically concluded, "we are here, and all reasonable scientests accept evolution, so that settles the issue."
The fossil records show that new life forms "suddenly appeared" (in the words of a science journal article) at various times in (pre)history. But no record of how these things came to be.
Not much to say about literal Creationists - they all start from a predetermined belief and proceed to "prove" their point by quoting scripture
If you mean by "Intelligent Design" that some unknown pre-existing force/being/etc directed the "evolutionary process", then that seems like a possible middle ground. Or maybe aliens seeded the planet with various life forms over eons of time...?
Actually, the latter makes almost as much sense as pure evolutionism or Creationism. (yeah, I know - so where did the "aliens" come from? )
Post by: Sindawe on February 02, 2007, 12:00:04 PM
Quote
For example: an eye. Sure, there are more primitive versions of eyes - but any lump of tissue is going to have to work pretty well as a vision device before it has any evolutionary advantage. Or transitioning to/from a wing/flipper/arm - anything in between is a handicap rather than an advantage.
Hmmmm..Was it this article? http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature4/index.html Print copy covers one possible sequence for the eye, from simple light sensative spot to the complex organ we all know and love. Those "transition" eyes are still around and in good use by the creatures who sport them, so I doubt they are a handicap. And mudskippers might risk to differ with you about the liability of their pectoral fins that resemble arms, but are not. Well, they would if mudskippers could talk. Quote
Or maybe aliens seeded the planet with various life forms over eons of time...?
Yeppers, its all the fault of the Thrint and their desire for food yeasts!
Post by: richyoung on February 02, 2007, 12:19:13 PM
Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.
You apparently have little to no knowledge of what "Intelligent design" theory actually is.
Generally, when someone says something like that, they provide an explanation.
Intelligent Design is the aplication of forensic science to the origins and variety of life on Earth. A quick and dirty capsule of one aspect of it is to examine the rate at which mutations, genetic drift, viral gene damage, and other factors can cause changes in an organisms DNA over time. Say, for example, ( and this is just an example), if the math comes out that it takes 65 billion years for a bacteria to evolve into a paramecium, yet the estimated age of the earth is much less than that, that is an implication that an outside intellligence may have been involved. This, along with other concepts such as the complex and specific nature of such structures as eyes, the presence of "junk DNA" and vestigal organs are all analyzed much as a dead body would be examined by the authorities to determine if it died from 'natural causes", or murder, and from what it died & how long ago. It is NOT creationism - it makes no attempt to name a Creator, be that the Christian or any other god. It is a largely mathmatical analysis of the likelyhood that, given X billion years, life got from virus and bacteria to us in that span of time.
Quote
And yes, I do. It's an unprovable tenet of FAITH relabled as science. It is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method, therefore it is not science.
Until we have observers capable of living millions and billions of years, evolution will remain as unprovable.
Quote
It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.
Neither myself nor the scientists that do the research say that.
Quote
As I said, it belongs in the Religious Studies classroom.
I would submit that Evolution and Global Warming, with their accolytes, suppresion of disent, and inquistions for the "unbelievers" has earned a place in Relgious Studies far more than I.D., and only slightly less than Wahabbi Islam.
Quote
We don't need science being derailed by religion, or the rest of the world, focused on science, will pull happily ahead in all aspects of industry and innovation.
Mind explaining how evolution theory has any bearing at all on: aerospace, metallurgy, electronics, the automobile industry, energy production, chemistry, etc, etc....
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2007, 12:25:28 PM
Quote
Until we have observers capable of living millions and billions of years, evolution will remain as unprovable.
Not quite true, as evolution in response to environmental stimuli and changing conditions can and has been proven in the lab with short-lifespan fast-generation organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies. There's also empirical evidence such as the moths that changed their camouflage colors during the Industrial Revolution to better blend in with soot-blackened environments. Those dark-colored moths were less likely to be seen and eaten, thus, survived longer to reproduce.
You're only talking about HUMAN and vertebrate evolution. On the latter, there is also a quite clear fossil record of the changes to species in response to changing environmental conditions, such as eohippi to the modern horse, or dire wolves to modern canines in all their environment-suited niche species. It can be observed in the very traits of such animals, from the large heat-radiator ears of desert animals to the tiny heat-conserving ears of arctic ones.
That argument's always been a bit of a red herring where the ID people try to disprove evolution. They also tend to ignore the australopithecine skeletons...especially the unsuccessful ones that died out entirely, like Australopithecus Robustus, which seems to have been a large vegetarian that couldn't compete.
Quote
It is a largely mathmatical analysis of the likelyhood that, given X billion years, life got from virus and bacteria to us in that span of time.
No, it's more a fundamental failure on the part of its proponents to conceive of the vast spans of time involved in evolution of higher species. It's an intellectual inability to get one's mind around just how long a million years is, let alone billions.
And no, it doesn't "name" a creator, but it absolutely and completely implies that some intelligent being had to do it all, nudge nudge wink wink. Just TRY to suggest to an ID proponent that "Well, it could have been....alllliens...", and you'll be smacked down with their true colors of blatant religiousity.
Darwin, you see, started with observations of creatures, took notes and drawings, and, over time, formulated a theory as to HOW such things could have resulted. ID is the complete opposite, starting with a blind belief and trying to find pseudoscientific reasons that could possibly fit it.
It is the philosophical equivalent of Swift's Laputan builders, dangling an unsupported roof and trying to build a house to fit under it, whereas the theory of evolution started with the foundation, empirical evidence, and built upward from there.
Post by: glockfan.45 on February 02, 2007, 12:57:33 PM
Intelligent design is in my view the half assed approach at explaining the origins of life. Its kinda like the old sea maps that charted what was known and anything beyond that was simply marked "there be dragons here". Religious groups realized that all their age old stories regarding the human race being 6,000 years old, woman being created from a rib, etc wasnt going to hold up forever and now seek to infiltrate the public schools with this compromised version of their ideology. As far as I am concerned I send my children to school and they attend science classes to learn science. They are not there to learn speculative theorys that are a watered down version of what the religious right thinks they should learn.
Time to duck and cover
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2007, 01:00:14 PM
Quote
Until we have observers capable of living millions and billions of years, evolution will remain as unprovable.
Not quite true, as evolution in response to environmental stimuli and changing conditions can and has been proven in the lab with short-lifespan fast-generation organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies. There's also empirical evidence such as the moths that changed their camouflage colors during the Industrial Revolution to better blend in with soot-blackened environments. Those dark-colored moths were less likely to be seen and eaten, thus, survived longer to reproduce.
You're only talking about HUMAN and vertebrate evolution. On the latter, there is also a quite clear fossil record of the changes to species in response to changing environmental conditions, such as eohippi to the modern horse, or dire wolves to modern canines in all their environment-suited niche species. It can be observed in the very traits of such animals, from the large heat-radiator ears of desert animals to the tiny heat-conserving ears of arctic ones.
That argument's always been a bit of a red herring where the ID people try to disprove evolution. They also tend to ignore the australopithecine skeletons...especially the unsuccessful ones that died out entirely, like Australopithecus Robustus, which seems to have been a large vegetarian that couldn't compete.
And moths changing color but remaining moths, and wolves morphing into other canids, even a wide variety of apparant hominids explain macroevolution/transspeciation exactly how?
Looks like species will adapt over time to their environment, or not and will die out, but that doesn't explain how we got from paramecia to moths or amphibians or canids or hominids in any real way. That's the weakness in evolutionary theory, you can't infer transspeciation from intra-genus or species environmental modification. That breakfast don't prove that lunch.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 01:23:29 PM
Also, for those that still believe evolution has not been demonstrated in modern times, just dig around a bit and you will find relevant scientific papers. Part of the problem is the conservatism of many biologists themselves, who blindly parrot the dogma they learnt in highschool 50 years ago that mutation is too slow to allow modern observation of evolution. To get references even more easily, just check out the work of Bob Austin at Princeton - take a few of his more recent papers on bacteria and pull out the references he quotes.
Transitional/vestigial organs may or may not be beneficial. Our appendix is a pain in the gut, and so are our wisdom teeth. Nothing "intelligent" about them. But, believe it or not, our skull is not completely opaque and certain parts of the brain (which are not our eyes) are light-sensitive. In fact sunstroke and sleepiness under a lot of sun are based partly on that fact. The sleepiness is your body telling you to get out of the sun before you dehydrate or get sunburn. If you are stubborn and persist, you get sunstroke. Also, frogs make excellent use of what used to be flippers, both for walking/jumping and for swimming. Penguins are not too shabby with their flippers either. Turtles will be surprised to know that their transitional walking flippers (which have bone structure similar to feet) are an impediment.
Finally, for those who say life just springs out of nowhere and suddenly. Please consider what timescales you really are talking about. Even the famous "extinction" K-T boundary encompasses millions of years. Even for a long-lived organism as ours, that is easily HALF A MILLION GENERATIONS!!
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 02:41:19 PM
Quote
Finally, for those who say life just springs out of nowhere and suddenly
In the materialists world view at some point in time there was no life and then there was. Time is the "magic" in your religion. If it doesn't make sense just ascribe some long eon of time and all the details work themselves out, like magic!
Chaos plus time does not equal order.
Post by: Tallpine on February 02, 2007, 03:09:56 PM
Quote
Finally, for those who say life just springs out of nowhere and suddenly.
It was actually a science journal that said that
Post by: zahc on February 02, 2007, 03:38:07 PM
Quote
Time is the "magic" in your religion. If it doesn't make sense just ascribe some long eon of time and all the details work themselves out, like magic!
So true, evolutionary explanations to the origin or life are almost humorous.
Post by: Strings on February 02, 2007, 03:39:45 PM
Now, if you'ld like to discuss Fool Designed, we can continue the discussion.
No smileys for a reason...
Post by: Twycross on February 02, 2007, 03:42:27 PM
Chaos plus time does not equal order.
+1. At some point, there was no life. We have life now, so at some point it appeared. Macroevolution (not to be confused with the entirely different microevolution) is the last bastion of spontaneous generation, and remains firmly grounded in the realm of "what if?," given that it by definition cannot be tested for and runs against all observable evidence on the subject of life-generation.
When modern science creates an electric motor capable of assembling itself from the inside out, reaching 17,000 rpm, and then reversing direction in a quarter of a turn, gimme a call.
Post by: wacki on February 02, 2007, 05:00:06 PM
For all those that think the planet is 6K years old, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
If a priest can understand science, why can't the new breed of devout Christians?
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 05:18:39 PM
You have been able to repeat this exercise and get the same results?
So you have proven the Theory of Evolution with your experiments?
What did your bacteria evolve in to?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2007, 05:22:51 PM
It just took a little UV light...
Post by: Sindawe on February 02, 2007, 05:43:49 PM
Quote
The man-pig, the one with the organs.
Best keep that thing away from bears. Quote
I've created viruses from scratch and bacteria from mostly scratch.
Can you elaborate on that? Are you creating a completely new, novel virus or recreating an already existent strain from amino and nucleic acids? Same for the bacteria, and is it a gram + or gram - organism?
The pigs? Thats not evolution, that engineering akin two what we were doing in the 1990s with E. coli, some human genome data and a commercially available plasmid.
Quote
If a priest can understand science, why can't the new breed of devout Christians?
Because in my view understanding science involves the ability to examine long held beliefs about life and the world, then chuck them in the garbage should those beliefs prove to be false. Note that this ability is also lacking in many of those who would call themselves scientists.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
Because in my view understanding science involves the ability to examine long held beliefs about life and the world, then chuck them in the garbage should those beliefs prove to be false.
Precisely. As science and technology march forward, the phenomenological component in religious texts becomes progressively unsustainable. ID is just one of the many ways the essentially unswayable attempt to reconcile their religious believes with evidence that undermines them.
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 06:27:30 PM
Quote
Precisely. As science and technology march forward, the phenomenological component in religious texts becomes progressively unsustainable. ID is just one of the many ways the essentially unswayable attempt to reconcile their religious believes with evidence that undermines them
It's so cute when you use big words
You confuse evidence with consensus.
My issue with modern science is the fact that they are locked into a naturalistic box.
They are forced to make their observations fit their presupposition that all things occurred via natural forces.
This leaves them with their own bunch of absurdities that they can't explain.
Something coming from nothing, chaos becoming order, inanimate becoming animate not to mention all the "logical conclusions" that can be drawn from believing in a purely materialistic reality as it relates to ethics.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2007, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Sindawe
Because in my view understanding science involves the ability to examine long held beliefs about life and the world, then chuck them in the garbage should those beliefs prove to be false.
Precisely. As science and technology march forward, the phenomenological component in religious texts becomes progressively unsustainable. ID is just one of the many ways the essentially unswayable attempt to reconcile their religious believes with evidence that undermines them.
Not everyone who is a Christian and has a problem with evolution (unrelated to their faith in my case) believes the Bible is to be taken literally.
To believe all Christians are Sola Scriptura literalists or hold to a 6,000 yr. old earth is to ignore most modern biblical scholarship and mainstream Christian thought.
To actually accuse Christians who happen to disagree with you on evolution of such Biblical beliefs is both arrogant and ignorant.
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 06:42:29 PM
Quote
Not everyone who is a Christian and has a problem with evolution (unrelated to their faith in my case) believes the Bible is to be taken literally.
To believe all Christians are Sola Scriptura literalists is to ignore most modern biblical scholarship. To actually accuse folks who disagree with you of such a belief is both arrogant and ignorant.
To believe all Christians are Sola Scriptura literalists is to ignore most modern biblical scholarship. To actually accuse folks who disagree with you of such a belief is both arrogant and ignorant.
It is diversionary tactic to change the focus of the debate. I always ignore the attacks on ID and/or Biblical creationists.
From a purely scientific view it doesn't have to be one or the other, creation or evolution.
The slavish attempt to make all the facts fit their world view close their minds to any other explanation whether it is ID or some other theory.
It allows them to talk about Jimmy Swaggert sleeping with whores instead of the gaping holes in their theories.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: Ron
You confuse evidence with consensus.
Please offer your evidence against current scientific views.
Quote
My issue with modern science is the fact that they are locked into a naturalistic box. They are forced to make their observations fit their presupposition that all things occurred via natural forces.
If you believe that there is something beyond nature and natural laws, please offer respective evidence. Something measurable, reproducible, tangible.
Quote
Something coming from nothing,
Where exactly is something from nothing? Stars "burn" hydrogen to produce heavier elements. Atoms of chemical elements combine into molecules. Molecules form cells. Cells form colonies and multicellular organisms. There is no rabbit from the hat.
Quote
chaos becoming order,
First off, what do you mean by chaos? Do you mean "disorder"? From a modern scientific perspective, the two are rather different. Mathematical "chaos" is certainly not disorder. Also, disorder of elements does not mean disorder of natural laws. We have not observed changes in the natural laws. Substances are reorganized based on them.
Quote
inanimate becoming animate
That depends on what you mean by "animate", does it not? Is a cell animate? How about its constituent molecules? If they function along natural laws, primarily physical and chemical ones, are individual molecules "animate"? If each is not animate, why should we believe that their sum is animate? Your very terminology is already loaded.
Quote
not to mention all the "logical conclusions" that can be drawn from believing in a purely materialistic reality as it relates to ethics.
Now we get to the crux of it. That is where it really hurts, doesn't it? That is what religious people cannot accept - the "ethical" implications of a mechanistic universe. But, that is their internal ethical problem. Nature cares not for human ethics. It just is.
People can agree upon common ethics without it being rooted in the nature of the universe, just in the same way as reasonable people treat one another well without the need of a policeman to keep them straight. Why does ethics have to be based on the physical universe? So that there is a Uberpoliceman that doles out "justice" in life and afterlife? Religious people should ask themselves why they have that need. Maybe they will find things about themselves they will not like. Hehe.
[/quote]
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2007, 06:55:05 PM
So many of the arguments I hear against "religious people' aren't based on "religious people" I actually know. Just supercilious projections by those who have an axe of their own to grind.
I don't mean that super negatively, but it ranges from amusing to annoying to hear the assumptions made about believers by those who aren't. I'm sure the reverse is true, but somehow nonbelievers seem to feel justified in being smug about it.
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 07:02:29 PM
Quote
Now we get to the crux of it
Just the tip of the iceberg more like it.Quote
Where exactly is something from nothing? Stars "burn" hydrogen to produce heavier elements. Atoms of chemical elements combine into molecules. Molecules form cells. Cells form colonies and multicellular organisms. There is no rabbit from the hat.
If you bring modern cosmology into the debate where did the singularity come from?Quote
First off, what do you mean by chaos? Do you mean "disorder"? From a modern scientific perspective, the two are rather different. Mathematical "chaos" is certainly not disorder. Also, disorder of elements does not mean disorder of natural laws. We have not observed changes in the natural laws. Substances are reorganized based on them.
Yes then, disorder. From the disorder of the big bang everything has been organizing itself in such a manner that now we have a planet with sentient life? Disorder plus time equals order?Quote
That depends on what you mean by "animate", does it not?
Let me dumb it down for you, LIFE. The natural sciences would have us believe that life spontaneously(after a lot of that "magic" time) came from that which wasn't alive.Quote
People can agree upon common ethics without it being rooted in the nature of the universe
I reject moral relativism. Cannibalistic cultures agreed that it was OK to eat their neighbor. Under your "common ethics" who are we to say it is wrong.Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 07:09:29 PM
Quote from: carebear
somehow nonbelievers seem to feel justified in being smug about it.
I do because I have seen so many times the real psychological motivations behind religious faith. Extremely rarely it is a case of pure idealism. Far more often, it is a mixture of fear, habit, loneliness, weakness, confusion, uncertainty, frustration, and thirst for hope, a natural high, or revenge. Those have been my observations and that's the basis of my opinion.
Post by: Ron on February 02, 2007, 07:13:20 PM
Quote
the basis of my opinion
You know what they say about opinions...Hehe
, time for me to sleep, gonna go shootin tomorrow.g'night
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 02, 2007, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: Ron
If you bring modern cosmology into the debate where did the singularity come from?
Yet again, a loaded question. You have already decided that somehow there was nothing, and an external divine force filled the nothing with something. (by the way, vacuum is not nothing, and certainly not "empty")
What if singularity was the beginning? Or alternatively, what if we live in an oscillatory universe, where a bang is followed by expansion is followed by contraction is followed by a bang?
Quote
From the disorder of the big bang everything has been organizing itself in such a manner that now we have a planet with sentient life? Disorder plus time equals order?
You quoted what you did not read. Where is the disorder in the big bang? Disorder of laws or disorder of matter? If you let a bunch of wooden and iron balls fall down a funnel into a bucket of water, by your understanding they were in disorder, but there is something special about them organizing themselves with all the iron ones at the bottom and all the wooden ones at the top. There is nothing special, magical, or divine about it. Matter rearranges itself in accordance with natural laws. There is no magic.
Quote
Let me dumb it down for you, LIFE. The natural sciences would have us believe that life spontaneously(after a lot of that "magic" time) came from that which wasn't alive.
Again a loaded terminology. What is sentience? Billions of neurons firing in self-organized external-stimuli-driven patterns? What is life? A cell functioning in accordance with physical laws and their chemical derivative laws? For all we know, a cell is a biomechanical machine driven by laws and probability. Nothing more. Please condense for me the Vis Vitalis, which is the tacit crux of your argument, so I can measure it and study it.
Quote
I reject moral relativism.
Objective reality cares not what you reject, unless you have the ability to modify your environment to match your ideas.
Quote
Cannibalistic cultures agreed that it was OK to eat there neighbor. Under your "common ethics" who are we to say it is wrong.
There is no fundamental ethical absolute. The little cannibals decide you are tasty. You do not want to be the pot roast. You fight. If you lose, you are pot roast. If you win, you get to live. It is that simple. And nature does not care either way. Capt Cook found that out for himself.
The only ethical limitations that have objective manifestations are those that humans choose to impose upon themselves, and one another.
Post by: Antibubba on February 02, 2007, 08:48:37 PM
Paris Hilton
Next subject?
Post by: wacki on February 02, 2007, 09:49:13 PM
So you have performed an exercise and observed evolution in the laboratory?
Yes. And what is amazing is that with some really really basic culturing skills, a few petri dishes and a UV lamp you can too. More on that later when I'm sober. If you are restless just pic up a freshman-college biology lab manual.
Quote
You have been able to repeat this exercise and get the same results?
Mutations are random so the odds you get the exact same results are extremely low. But the ability to force evolution (via natural [or un-natural] selection) is reproducible.
Quote
So you have proven the Theory of Evolution with your experiments?
Me? No. That goes to Charles Darwin (maybe) and a few thousand scientists after him. They deserve the credit. I am merely reproducing/altering some rather basic experiments.
Quote
What did your bacteria evolve in to?
Well I've evolved so many different varieties of bacteria, fungi, and virii it's hard to keep count. Most of my experiments were with antibiotic, cancer, and aging. It's amazingly easy to develop a strain of bacteria/fungi that have incredible abilities in these categories.
-late friday-night 'tipsy' posting
wacki
Post by: Strings on February 02, 2007, 09:55:00 PM
Ron: you're assuming that what we have is "order". Interesting concept, given how the world seems to work...
Post by: wacki on February 02, 2007, 10:13:36 PM
Quote
I've created viruses from scratch and bacteria from mostly scratch.
Can you elaborate on that? Are you creating a completely new, novel virus or recreating an already existent strain from amino and nucleic acids?
Well one of the more novel experiments we performed (for 'fun'/education) was to create a virus that infected a tobacco plant in a non-lethal way. The tobacco plants genome was altered in a way that it glowed in the dark. No other virus on the planet exists that can do that (that we know of). So I would think that is novel, but you never know..... For monetary reasons we made the virus out of cannibalized particles of lightning bugs and other virii. But we could have made the virus with basic chemicals. Doing so would have transformed the process from a rather cheap experiment to a very expensive one but there is no doubt it could have been done.
Quote
The pigs? Thats not evolution, that engineering akin two what we were doing in the 1990s with E. coli, some human genome data and a commercially available plasmid.
True, but it is a small and simple way to explain that scientists have a very very good idea as to what is going on with regard to DNA.
Quote
Quote
If a priest can understand science, why can't the new breed of devout Christians?
Because in my view understanding science involves the ability to examine long held beliefs about life and the world, then chuck them in the garbage should those beliefs prove to be false. Note that this ability is also lacking in many of those who would call themselves scientists.
I agree in full that there are some rather crazy scientists out there. But when it comes to evolution, DNA, etc it really doesn't take a whole lot of brains to realize what is going on. It only requires a lot of patience, dedication, and an open mind. There are some really smart people that are in denial. That much is obvious, but those people are in the vast vast minority among those in the field. If you either study the past ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils or go to a museum) or study the complex biochemistry of DNA then evolution should be obvious. The smaller the animal (virii & bacteria) the faster the evolution.
I could write more but those who are in denial of evolution will be in for a very rude awakening in 30 years or so. Also, if the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should at least make sure the majority of their members have a solid grounding in freshman biology. If you are not the kind of person to read books you should at least try running a few experiments with bacteria in your garage.
-<3'in the cabernet
.308 winchester totin' (only when sober of course) wacki
Post by: Ron on February 03, 2007, 04:24:42 AM
Quote
Yet again, a loaded question. You have already decided that somehow there was nothing, and an external divine force filled the nothing with something. (by the way, vacuum is not nothing, and certainly not "empty")
What if singularity was the beginning? Or alternatively, what if we live in an oscillatory universe, where a bang is followed by expansion is followed by contraction is followed by a bang?
So you believe matter and energy are eternal? They always were, no beginning?What if singularity was the beginning? Or alternatively, what if we live in an oscillatory universe, where a bang is followed by expansion is followed by contraction is followed by a bang?
Quote
You quoted what you did not read. Where is the disorder in the big bang? Disorder of laws or disorder of matter? If you let a bunch of wooden and iron balls fall down a funnel into a bucket of water, by your understanding they were in disorder, but there is something special about them organizing themselves with all the iron ones at the bottom and all the wooden ones at the top. There is nothing special, magical, or divine about it. Matter rearranges itself in accordance with natural laws. There is no magic.
The big bang may be acting according to natural laws but those very laws state that systems tend toward disorder.
I use chaos or disorder and you seem to deny those words mean what they mean.
Quote
Again a loaded terminology. What is sentience? Billions of neurons firing in self-organized external-stimuli-driven patterns? What is life? A cell functioning in accordance with physical laws and their chemical derivative laws? For all we know, a cell is a biomechanical machine driven by laws and probability. Nothing more. Please condense for me the Vis Vitalis, which is the tacit crux of your argument, so I can measure it and study it.
You make my point, letting folks who take your view of reality run things opens the doors to atrocities beyond imagination.
You may not like my using metaphysical arguments but the theories science puts forth have consequences beyond the lab. If all we are is bio mechanical machines there really is no basis for morality or ethics other than convenience.
Quote
Objective reality cares not what you reject, unless you have the ability to modify your environment to match your ideas.
I reject that you and your ilk have a better grasp of objective reality. As if you could put the whole of reality in a petri dish.Quote
There is no fundamental ethical absolute. The little cannibals decide you are tasty. You do not want to be the pot roast. You fight. If you lose, you are pot roast. If you win, you get to live. It is that simple. And nature does not care either way. Capt Cook found that out for himself.
The only ethical limitations that have objective manifestations are those that humans choose to impose upon themselves, and one another.
You make my case for me.The only ethical limitations that have objective manifestations are those that humans choose to impose upon themselves, and one another.
Post by: Ron on February 03, 2007, 04:38:30 AM
Quote
Well one of the more novel experiments we performed (for 'fun'/education) was to create a virus
Ironically of all of the ways you could have explained this you chose to use the word create and then later in the post "make".
So an intelligence can take matter and energy, add what is missing in it's natural state (organization) and come up with something new. In an earlier post the proof you offer of evolution is various strains of bacteria and fungi you "developed".
Quote
Ron: you're assuming that what we have is "order". Interesting concept, given how the world seems to work...
I've got one guy insinuating there is no such thing as disorder or chaos as I understand them and another guy questioning whether there is any "order"
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2007, 04:43:25 AM
Their mindset is, at its most basic level, "I cannot concieve of four dimensions, space/time, or the fact that the universe might not have to have a "beginning" as I percieve the passage of time, I have not studied string theory, quantum mechanics, or amino acid development, and therefore, I will comfort myself by saying GOD(s) must have done it all."
At its core, I'm sorry, but it's a very primitive mindset. It's exactly how ancient peoples didn't understand lightning, so they called it the acts of angry gods, same with volcanic eruptions. If you showed an ancient person your cellphone, with its color screen and ability to talk to someone who wasn't there, they would SWEAR it was an artifact of the gods...that nobody could have made something that miraculous and complex. You know better, that all of the millions of microcircuits that make it go were designed and assembled by human beings.
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
Post by: Iapetus on February 03, 2007, 04:52:48 AM
And moths changing color but remaining moths, and wolves morphing into other canids, even a wide variety of apparant hominids explain macroevolution/transspeciation exactly how?
Looks like species will adapt over time to their environment, or not and will die out, but that doesn't explain how we got from paramecia to moths or amphibians or canids or hominids in any real way. That's the weakness in evolutionary theory, you can't infer transspeciation from intra-genus or species environmental modification. That breakfast don't prove that lunch.
But if the members of a species were separated into two groups that were unable to mix, and which inhabited different environments, both groups would undergo microevolution so as to adapt to their different habitats.
For some time, these would just be two varieties of the same species, and if mixed together, would be able to breed.
But if they were kept separate for a sufficient time, and their environments were sufficiently different, then microevolution could result in changes large enough to prevent them breeding if they were to com in to contact. So now you have two species, where you once had only one.
Post by: Ron on February 03, 2007, 05:00:03 AM
Quote
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
Ironically religious people would make a similar argument that it your fear that there might be a God who is going to hold you accountable that keeps you seeking an alternative answer, regardless of the improbability of that answer.
Post by: Ron on February 03, 2007, 05:06:01 AM
Quote
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
If it makes you feel better to think I am some Luddite who fears looking into the abyss then that is OK with me
It is a funny way to view someone who enjoys reading philosophy, metaphysics and Theology and who is a backyard astronomy hobbyist.
I think you just don't want to discuss what the ramifications are of your view of reality. Fair enough, I don't want to make you uncomfortable.
Post by: Tallpine on February 03, 2007, 07:03:27 AM
Quote
Well one of the more novel experiments we performed (for 'fun'/education) was to create a virus that infected a tobacco plant in a non-lethal way. The tobacco plants genome was altered in a way that it glowed in the dark. No other virus on the planet exists that can do that (that we know of). So I would think that is novel, but you never know..... For monetary reasons we made the virus out of cannibalized particles of lightning bugs and other virii. But we could have made the virus with basic chemicals. Doing so would have transformed the process from a rather cheap experiment to a very expensive one but there is no doubt it could have been done.
Sounds like "intelligent design" on your part to me
When you manage to get a bacteria to mutate into a multi-cell creature that reproduces sexually, let me know ....
Hey! What about engineering a pine/fir/spruce tree that glows in the dark, and sell them for xmas trees?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 03, 2007, 07:32:26 AM
Quote from: Ron
So you believe matter and energy are eternal? They always were, no beginning?
All observations and experiments have upheld that scientific view. When you build Perpetuum Mobile or make gold out of thin air, please give me us a call and we will examine the counterevidence.
Quote
The big bang may be acting according to natural laws but those very laws state that systems tend toward disorder.
I use chaos or disorder and you seem to deny those words mean what they mean.
I use chaos or disorder and you seem to deny those words mean what they mean.
You keep dancing with terminology. For the third time, what is your definition of "disorder"? Lack of organization? Randomness? Lawlessness? And of what - matter or physical laws? If you do not define a word you use, we cannot know what you mean by it.
Quote
You make my point, letting folks who take your view of reality run things opens the doors to atrocities beyond imagination.
"Letting" us run things?? Hehe. I think you should compare how many people over the ages have died at the hands of religious zealots and "idealists" vs how many at the hands of scientists. The door to atrocities is certainly not closed by religion; more often, it is opened by it.
Quote
You may not like my using metaphysical arguments but the theories science puts forth have consequences beyond the lab. If all we are is bio mechanical machines there really is no basis for morality or ethics other than convenience.
There certainly is no physical or unversal basis for it. Instead, people choose for themselves what societies they want to live in and what rules to uphold. Successful societies involve a large measure of self-control and a strong sense of social contract. Positive collaborative intelligent behavior is generally more successful than negative nihilistic narrowly-selfish behavior, because better long-term results are produced by positive reinforcement rather than mutual cannibilization. That is why societies of the former culture and practice are far more successful than societies of the latter.
Quote
I reject that you and your ilk have a better grasp of objective reality. As if you could put the whole of reality in a petri dish.
You have the freedom to reject anything you wish. But, the very computer you typed your opinion on was produced by the educated efforts of people of my "ilk". By contrast, what is the last thing that priests willed into objective reality?
Reality in a petri dish? Modern science successfully explains a myriad phenomena ranging in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. It also produces technological tools that allow us to control our environment like never before, from the subatomic to the macro-scale.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 03, 2007, 07:43:38 AM
Quote from: Ron
It is a funny way to view someone who enjoys reading philosophy, metaphysics and Theology and who is a backyard astronomy hobbyist.
Therein the problem. You prefer to dabble in philosophy, methaphysics, and theology, instead of studying hard science. All first three are put together by humans to make sense and be comfortable to humans; if they weren't they'd be rejected as obviously wrong. Hard science is put together to follow nature by methods that are specifically designed to minimize the subjectivity contribution of the observer. Nature is inhuman. And so, hard science is emotionally inconvenient.
Quote
I think you just don't want to discuss what the ramifications are of your view of reality.
I have been happy to discuss them above, I recognize them, and do not think they are a problem.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 03, 2007, 07:49:43 AM
Quote from: Manedwolf
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
That is most of it, but not all. Ethical and social fears, as well as self-perceptional issues are also involved.
Post by: Sindawe on February 03, 2007, 07:56:20 AM
Quote
For monetary reasons we made the virus out of cannibalized particles of lightning bugs and other virii. But we could have made the virus with basic chemicals. Doing so would have transformed the process from a rather cheap experiment to a very expensive one but there is no doubt it could have been done.
While interesting (was this published?), the experiment no more created a virus from 'scratch' than my taking parts from several VW Bugs and a 350 small block to assemble a 'new' automobile. Quote
The smaller the animal (virii & bacteria) the faster the evolution.
Evolution occurs "faster" for those organisms due to their comparatively shorter generation times, not due to their smaller size. Quote
Also, if the firearm community wants to be taken seriously they should at least make sure the majority of their members have a solid grounding in freshman biology.
Only if they wish to discuss matters of biology.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 03, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
Quote from: Sindawe
While interesting (was this published?), the experiment no more created a virus from 'scratch' than my taking parts from several VW Bugs and a 350 small block to assemble a 'new' automobile.
True, but it is only the expense rather than fundamental limitations that prevents building it from scratch. Nowadays, companies synthesize nucleotides from scratch (e.g. Boehringer Mannheim), which are then used to make DNA and RNA synthetically (e.g. Operon). With just a thermocycler (e.g. by ABI Biosystems) and a basic wet-chemistry lab, virtually anyone can produce longer DNA by ligation, base extension, and PCR. The enzymes used are known in structure and in principle can be assembled aminoacid by aminoacid and there are companies that produce custom proteins (Qiagen, Genentech ?). Of course, it is much cheaper to get bacteria to grow proteins for you (which is a big chunk of Genentech's business), but the fundamental synthetic capability is present.
Post by: Sindawe on February 03, 2007, 08:35:48 AM
Quote
True, but it is only the expense rather than fundamental limitations that prevents building it from scratch.
Also true, but is not what wacki claimed to have done. If there is any sort of intelligent design in our universe, I suspect it occured at a far deeper level than the organization of inanimate matter into the self replicating patterns we know as life.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 03, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Many other "religious" wars in history used religion simply as a moral justification for the standard (and real motivating) tribal and economic reasons. Lacking religion they'd have killed each other just as happily. See the Third World.
Quote
Their mindset is, at its most basic level, "I cannot concieve of four dimensions, space/time, or the fact that the universe might not have to have a "beginning" as I percieve the passage of time, I have not studied string theory, quantum mechanics, or amino acid development, and therefore, I will comfort myself by saying GOD(s) must have done it all."
At its core, I'm sorry, but it's a very primitive mindset. It's exactly how ancient peoples didn't understand lightning, so they called it the acts of angry gods, same with volcanic eruptions. If you showed an ancient person your cellphone, with its color screen and ability to talk to someone who wasn't there, they would SWEAR it was an artifact of the gods...that nobody could have made something that miraculous and complex. You know better, that all of the millions of microcircuits that make it go were designed and assembled by human beings.
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
At its core, I'm sorry, but it's a very primitive mindset. It's exactly how ancient peoples didn't understand lightning, so they called it the acts of angry gods, same with volcanic eruptions. If you showed an ancient person your cellphone, with its color screen and ability to talk to someone who wasn't there, they would SWEAR it was an artifact of the gods...that nobody could have made something that miraculous and complex. You know better, that all of the millions of microcircuits that make it go were designed and assembled by human beings.
It's a philosophical security blanket for that which we do not know. Some people can stare into the abyss and keep staring, trying to resolve more of the view. Others roll up in a ball and claim it had to be a supreme being, it's too big for them.
Again, more false, arrogant bullshit. Who the hell are you to tell me what I believe and why? What I can or cannot concieve. Has your extensive study of the natural sciences gained you the power to read men's minds? If not then kiss my ass and quit projecting what you think onto me.
Grabbing onto one theory and refusing to consider it may be wrong is just as much a security blanket as someone who wants to believe in a 6000 year old earth. Interpreting evidence to fit the theory because of an unshakeable belief the theory itself must be true, rather than re-questioning the theory as new evidence presents itself is worship of the theory.
There are a lot of people who cling religiously to "scientific" ideas because they can't face uncertainty either. They accept anything someone with a doctorate tells them as ardently as a 10th Century peasant trusted his priest. Those people are no less primitive than 6000 year creationists.
Post by: wacki on February 03, 2007, 10:38:40 AM
Ironically of all of the ways you could have explained this you chose to use the word create and then later in the post "make".
So an intelligence can take matter and energy, add what is missing in it's natural state (organization) and come up with something new. In an earlier post the proof you offer of evolution is various strains of bacteria and fungi you "developed".
So an intelligence can take matter and energy, add what is missing in it's natural state (organization) and come up with something new. In an earlier post the proof you offer of evolution is various strains of bacteria and fungi you "developed".
There is a reason why I encourage people to test this stuff out in their garage. A lot of these experiments are incredibly easy to perform. And once you perform them it should be quite clear how it could occur naturally over a long period of time.
Post by: richyoung on February 03, 2007, 06:12:48 PM
Quote
Until we have observers capable of living millions and billions of years, evolution will remain as unprovable.
Not quite true, as evolution in response to environmental stimuli and changing conditions can and has been proven in the lab with short-lifespan fast-generation organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies.
...and yet, with all the research on fruit flies, we have created flightless fruit flies, blind fruit flies, all variety of fruit flies...BUT THEY ARE STILL FRUIT FLIES! Not horse flies, house flies - NO NEW SPECIES HAS THUS BEEN CREATED!
Quote
There's also empirical evidence such as the moths that changed their camouflage colors during the Industrial Revolution to better blend in with soot-blackened environments. Those dark-colored moths were less likely to be seen and eaten, thus, survived longer to reproduce.
... you mean you DON'T KNOW that this "story" has been proven to be faked? Dead moths were pinned to tree trunks, where they would NEVER rest, for the so-called study. Not to mention, light or darl, they are still PEPPERED MOTHS - they aren't a new species.
Quote
No, it's more a fundamental failure on the part of its proponents to conceive of the vast spans of time involved in evolution of higher species. It's an intellectual inability to get one's mind around just how long a million years is, let alone billions.
Ah, yes, the old "only smart people such as myself can grasp this" argument. The rules of the APS prevent further discourse of my opinion of this tactic....
Quote
And no, it doesn't "name" a creator, but it absolutely and completely implies that some intelligent being had to do it all, nudge nudge wink wink. Just TRY to suggest to an ID proponent that "Well, it could have been....alllliens...", and you'll be smacked down with their true colors of blatant religiousity.
Got some proof of that? An example? Didn't think so. ID doesn't claim, know or care if its God, aliens or Elvis - but its easier for you to just make up what you THINK you know about it - do you do Global Warming research?
Quote
Darwin, you see, started with observations of creatures, took notes and drawings, and, over time, formulated a theory as to HOW such things could have resulted. ID is the complete opposite, starting with a blind belief and trying to find pseudoscientific reasons that could possibly fit it.
Not according to those who do it.
Post by: richyoung on February 03, 2007, 06:24:05 PM
The mathematical calculation is a flawed argument because it is based on a wrong premise - it tacitly assumes that mutation rates are constant. In fact, there is plenty of evidence, even in the modern world, e.g. antibiotic resistances, that show that mutation rates widely vary.
This is true - but over long periods of time, there wil still be an AVERAGE rate. Even over short periods of time, there will still be a MAXIMUM rate. Thus, if the age of the Earth multiplied by the AVERAGE rate doesn't get us there, that is in itself evidence. Perhaps it will be found that even the MAXIMUM rate times the planet's age isn;t enough. We won;t know until we look. ID is the science of looking - thats all.
Quote
Further, there are biochemical mechanisms that greatly increase the mutation rates when the organism is under increased environmental pressure. Experimental evidence is mostly limited to bacterial organisms for practical (and legal!!) reasons, but the fundamental concepts hold because even something as evolved as we are still use some of the basic biochemical apparatus of bacteria.
..and HOW MANY new species of bacteria have we evolved int he lab? I beleive that number is...ZERO? We get new STRAINS of existing species, but not new species. Might have somthing to do with the fact that almost all mutations are deleterious.
Quote
Also, for those that still believe evolution has not been demonstrated in modern times, just dig around a bit and you will find relevant scientific papers.
I have - haven't found anything convincing. Other than an arguable case - ( is a diploid gene plant a new species?) nothing convincing.
Part of the problem is the conservatism of many biologists themselves, who blindly parrot the dogma they learnt in highschool 50 years ago that mutation is too slow to allow modern observation of evolution. To get references even more easily, just check out the work of Bob Austin at Princeton - take a few of his more recent papers on bacteria and pull out the references he quotes.
Quote
Finally, for those who say life just springs out of nowhere and suddenly. Please consider what timescales you really are talking about. Even the famous "extinction" K-T boundary encompasses millions of years. Even for a long-lived organism as ours, that is easily HALF A MILLION GENERATIONS!!
Ah so - evolution defense numbah two - throw a lot of time at the problem. But don't examine the probability - that's ID...
The extremely unlikely does NOT necessarily happen because a long time has gone by.
Post by: mike on February 04, 2007, 06:47:48 AM
It could be 1 sec = ! million of our years or some other value.
Also, who can prove or disprove that we or our universe are not setting in a giant petri dish?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 04, 2007, 07:29:20 AM
Quote from: carebear
Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler were not followers of any monotheistic religion. They wanted a humanistic, areligious, scientific organization of society.
Hmm, no.
The nazis ripped down Christian ideas and were resurrecting pagan ideas in their place, much akin to druidics. They worshipped the "blood" or "lineage", which is a form of ancentral worship. Primitive? Yes. A religion? Certainly. They had the mythology part covered as well - the ideas of ancient aryan homeland producing all the wisdom in a sea of subhuman barbarians. They even had a "bible" that they printed on cattle hides, bound in steel, and entombed in a concrete sarcophagus to be opened after 1000 years. They had their Pontifex Maximus (Hitler) to preside over holy rituals. They had clerics and monks (propagandists, SS-men), warrior-monks (Waffen-SS), even a form of templar (SS-MDs) to protect their holy grail (pure aryan blood) from corruption (propagation of the defective, misalliance with the untermenschen) by purges (castration of "idiots" and deathcamps for the untermensch). They had their religious rallies - torch marches - druidic in symbolics and certainly mystic in intent, meaning, and effect - a form of group communion with their deity ("the pure blood"). They even had their own version of the Second Coming - the production of Nietzschean supermen - which they were striving to foment by selective breeding to purify the contaminated aryan blood. Finally, they were highly motivated in their atrocities exactly by that religious faith, rather than by "scientific" ideas.
Similar things can be found with commies as well. Their worship was one of the Big Communist Kumbaya, which is essentially a collectivist perverted humanism. They had their highpriest (GenSec), temples (Party Houses), preachers (PolitRuk), bibles (Das Kapital, gensec writings) and enforcers (Commisars, NKVD/KGB) as well as the religious zeal and intolerance of true believers. As far as science goes, they really stuck their heels with genetics because it was inconsistent with their Marxist dogma that environment and not lineage determines properties. If they were "scientifically motivated", they would not have rejected such a major advance as genetics.
Taking into account that the first thing Pol Pot did was slaughter doctors, scientists, teachers, essentially anybody with highschool education or above, your claim above cannot be taken seriously.
Quote
Interpreting evidence to fit the theory because of an unshakeable belief the theory itself must be true, rather than re-questioning the theory as new evidence presents itself is worship of the theory.
Provide objective evidence against current scientific understanding, and we will gladly consider it.
Quote
There are a lot of people who cling religiously to "scientific" ideas because they can't face uncertainty either. They accept anything someone with a doctorate tells them as ardently as a 10th Century peasant trusted his priest.
If they cannot face uncertainty, they would not like what their PhD tells them, which is natural laws (certain) plus probability (inherently uncertain, a toss of the dice). In fact, I would argue that religion is far more "rigid/certain" than science exactly because of it. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc...
Post by: Ron on February 04, 2007, 07:31:34 AM
Quote
Also, who can prove or disprove that we or our universe are not setting in a giant petri dish? shocked
If it can't be measured and quantified it doesn't exist to the materialist, unless it suits their pleasure.
Post by: mike on February 04, 2007, 09:38:50 AM
LOL
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 05, 2007, 05:09:36 PM
Sheesh, you're like evolutionist Kent Hovinds.