Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 28
Send Topic Print
EVOLUTION VS RELIGION (Read 74273 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48862
At my desk.
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #270 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 8:25pm
 
Basically the model is unscientific for the same reason the theory it represents is unscientific. Communicating it as a flow diagram instead of a theory in words doesn't really change anything. The same argument applies to both. The technicalities of the diagram are a red herring.

Muso seems to have mistaken my postion for claiming that evolution is wrong. I suspect that you were doing the same, and assuming I would therefor be able to point out which part of the model is wrong.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #271 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 9:10pm
 
LOL This is so typical of other discussions on this forum. First you start off with some kind of total misrepresentation of the subject you are discussing and then proceed to tear down the strawman.

That looks like some kind of batch process. How absurd.

EXORCIZO te, immundíssime spiritus, omnis incursio adversarii, omne phantasma, omnis legio, in nomine veritate  Grin
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #272 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 9:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 8:25pm:
Basically the model is unscientific for the same reason the theory it represents is unscientific. Communicating it as a flow diagram instead of a theory in words doesn't really change anything. The same argument applies to both. The technicalities of the diagram are a red herring.
...


I agree that the model is visual representation of evolutionary mechanism but I still don't see any reason why it would not work.
Can you clarify which part of it is unscientific?
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48862
At my desk.
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #273 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:02pm
 
Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues.

The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #274 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:15pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:02pm:
Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues.

The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?



Quote:
What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.


But It is falsifiable. If it was not true then predictions about finding intermediate stages between existing biological species would not be fulfilled.

Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48862
At my desk.
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #275 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:35pm
 
But predictions have not been fullfilled. This has never contradicted the theory, as it is infinitely adaptable. That is because it is a theory that explains after the fact, not a theory that predicts. Failure to find supporting evidence is not a disproof of the theory. It cannot be falsified. If you design any test to falsify it, and the theory fails the test, the theory is not falsified. Rather, the test is.

For something to be falsifiable from a scientific perspective, you must be able to design a repeatable experiment that would disprove it, if it were false. It is not good enough to be theoretically able to stumble across evidence that would disprove the theory. The whole point of science is that anyone else is able to attempt to discredit it at any time. It would be of little value if apparent falsification was merely met with "well you weren't looking hard enough". That sort of standard would allow in all sorts of absurd and valueless theories. For example, I could come up with a theory that unicorns, or aliens don't exist. This could also be falsifified in the broader sense of the term. You would just have to find a unicorn somewhere. But the theory is of no value from a scientific perspective.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #276 - Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:51pm
 
Quote:
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
...
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #277 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 8:35am
 
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:02pm:
Whether it would work, and whether it is scientific, are two completely separate issues.

The whole theory of evolution is unscientific. It doesn't really come down to specific parts of it. This article explains it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Muso, who is making the strawman, and what is it?



It's the flow chart. I mean 'Initialisation of population" or whatever ?
It sounds like a second rank computer simulation for some kind of computer game. That's why I asked where on earth you got it from. For one thing, the Evolutionary process has nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. It's about the modification of organisms through natural selection, based on  environmental constraints, including such parameters as coevolution and interdependance of species within ecosystems and populations.

Mutation is not a major factor. Inheritable genetic variability and the fact that environmental bottlenecks favour phenotypes in the population, leading to genetic drift is by far the major evolutionary mechanism.

There are many other factors much more important than mutation. These include such factors as genetic drift, migration of populations, changing environment, the nature of the environmental change etc.

I think a simple flow chart like that misrepresents the entire process, and just leads to total misunderstanding. I don't even know if it's possible to represent the entire evolutionary process in such a way.  

I am by no means an expert in evolutionary processes, but I know a fundamental flaw when I see it.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2008 at 8:41am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #278 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 9:45am
 
FD I'm not sure I follow when you say that there are no scientific predictions, I think this may have started as a clever (and it is clever)semantics game in high school and you haven't let it go.

Predictions - Is Evolution Science?
Original at - http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:



Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
 

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
 

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
 

Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
 

Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
 

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
 

Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
 

Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
 

In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
 

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
 

From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
 

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
 

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
 

In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2008 at 9:50am by locutius »  

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
locutius
Gold Member
*****
Offline


You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #279 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 9:46am
 
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
 

Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

 

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
 

The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.

 

An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2008 at 9:53am by locutius »  

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #280 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 10:57am
 
muso wrote on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 8:35am:
...
It's the flow chart. I mean 'Initialisation of population" or whatever ?
It sounds like a second rank computer simulation for some kind of computer game. That's why I asked where on earth you got it from. For one thing, the Evolutionary process has nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth.

It's about the modification of organisms through natural selection, based on  environmental constraints, including such parameters as coevolution and interdependance of species within ecosystems and populations.

Mutation is not a major factor. Inheritable genetic variability and the fact that environmental bottlenecks favour phenotypes in the population, leading to genetic drift is by far the major evolutionary mechanism.

There are many other factors much more important than mutation. These include such factors as genetic drift, migration of populations, changing environment, the nature of the environmental change etc.

I think a simple flow chart like that misrepresents the entire process, and just leads to total misunderstanding. I don't even know if it's possible to represent the entire evolutionary process in such a way.  

I am by no means an expert in evolutionary processes, but I know a fundamental flaw when I see it.


That's why "Initialisation of population" term is used. The block diagram concentrates on evolutionary process rather then on "origins of life on Earth".
A block diagram is supposed to be simple to outline the process in general. When this is done the blocks of a diagram can be expanded and analysed separately to avoid complexity confusion.

Anyway can you point out the fundamental flaw that you claim you can see?

Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #281 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:00am
 
Usually when I see people splitting hairs about the evolutionary process like in this thread, they have a hidden agenda, and they have an endless arsenal of disembodied facts that can be used against any science based assertion. They generally don't understand the points , but are quite happy to cut and paste. The arguments on dating are the most absurd, expecially considering how the fossil record neatly falls into place, complete with lineages.

We then start to get into circular arguments based on Biblical scripture. Sorry, but I have a lot better things to do than argue for evolutionary science against a creationist.

Life is too short. If you believe that all plant and animal species that exist today were all taken off Noah's Ark after the mythological flood, including kangaroos, possums and witchety grubs, then all I can do is smile and say "I have nothing further to say to you"

I would have better luck arguing with my dog.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #282 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:04am
 
tallowood wrote on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 10:57am:
Anyway can you point out the fundamental flaw that you claim you can see?



Yeah. I'd only be too glad to do so if you could point out the minute imperfections in this picture of a cat?

Maybe the eyes are not quite right?
Back to top
 

cat.jpg (2 KB | 39 )
cat.jpg

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #283 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:07am
 
Why then do you "splitting hairs about the evolutionary process"?

BTW, do you believe that all modern genetic variability existed from "day 0" or did it develop due to mutation?

Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6048
Re: EVOLUTION VS RELIGION
Reply #284 - Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:11am
 
muso wrote on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:04am:
tallowood wrote on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 10:57am:
Anyway can you point out the fundamental flaw that you claim you can see?



Yeah. I'd only be too glad to do so if you could point out the minute imperfections in this picture of a cat?

Maybe the eyes are not quite right?


That is very scientific way to argue. I can see now that you are a real scientist, muso. I think it will be cool to use such argument against environmental dangers of green gases.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Back to top
 

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 28
Send Topic Print