Australian Politics Forum - EVOLUTION VS RELIGION

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #90 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 2:46pm

yet I cited examples of ideas that would falsify evolution, you simply dismissed them as not empirical

Perhaps you meant empirical in the sense of observations. I should have used the term experimental to differentiate between casual observations and attempts to isolate causal relationships.

testing the different genetic sequences of fossil records

Fossil records do not have genetic sequences.

The presence of chimeras? How does this not empirically falsify evolution?

It would, but it is not an experiment. Furthermore, chimeras are quite common. This thing about chimeras is based on an assumption by many evolutionists that organisms can only get their genetic info from their parents (ie within the same species). However, organisms frequently exchange DNA with other species.

yet in examples I have cited experiments have been conducted to empirically compare a species living in positive environments to those living in harsh environments and the prediction that there would be beneficial mutations under these conditions held up...?

Beneficial mutation was not observed. What was observed was far more likely to be already present.

You think that the idea of beneficial mutations is a load of tripe

Far from it. Of course, you would know this if you truly did understand my argument as you claim.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #91 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:04pm

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 2:46pm:

yet I cited examples of ideas that would falsify evolution, you simply dismissed them as not empirical

Perhaps you meant empirical in the sense of observations. I should have used the term experimental to differentiate between casual observations and attempts to isolate causal relationships.

Quite the little dance you do isnt it? you're here then you're there, nobody knows where freediver might stand next, keeping things sufficiently vague to always have a way out, sense is on the money!

Newsflash d!ckhead, empiricism implies experiment by definition Roll Eyes

Quote:

testing the different genetic sequences of fossil records

Fossil records do not have genetic sequences.

Hmm... are you sure about that? Tree sap has yielded many species that can and have had their DNA examined, thank you.

Quote:

The presence of chimeras? How does this not empirically falsify evolution?

It would, but it is not an experiment. Furthermore, chimeras are quite common. This thing about chimeras is based on an assumption by many evolutionists that organisms can only get their genetic info from their parents (ie within the same species). However, organisms frequently exchange DNA with other species.

Got a source?

Quote:

yet in examples I have cited experiments have been conducted to empirically compare a species living in positive environments to those living in harsh environments and the prediction that there would be beneficial mutations under these conditions held up...?

Beneficial mutation was not observed. What was observed was far more likely to be already present.

Hmm yes, so a species can be two seperate species at once now, and yet only reveal its second self under empirical experiment when it suits just so that evolution holds up.... riiight freediver, you are a fcucking crank, my god man!

Quote:

You think that the idea of beneficial mutations is a load of tripe

Far from it. Of course, you would know this if you truly did understand my argument as you claim.

The words spewed forth from your mouth (or fingers) I can't be assed digging it up now... I think it is in this thread though.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #92 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:11pm

Newsflash d!ckhead, empiricism implies experiment by definition

Actually, I looked it up in the dictionary as I thought you were trying to use the term to include observations. It turns out, the dictionary does include observations. So I will switch to experiment to avoid confusion. Someone is bound to get tripped up on it. Plus, experiment is more widely known.

Got a source?

It's common knowledge. Why do you think scientists are concerned about gene swaping with the whole GMO debate?

Hmm yes, so a species can be two seperate species at once now, and yet only reveal its second self under empirical experiment when it suits just so that evolution holds up.... riiight freediver, you are a fcucking crank, my god man!

Even evolutionists do not consider mutation alone to be sufficient for the creation of a new species.

The words spewed forth from your mouth (or fingers) I can't be assed digging it up now... I think it is in this thread though.

Well I doubt it. To say something like that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #93 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:17pm

Quote:

It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

Natural selection, not evolution. Resistance to drugs requires some initial inherent resistance, not a beneficial mutation that randomly generates that resistance. If this were not so, we would wipe diseases out long before they developed resistance.

Hmm... please forgive me if that sounds like you think beneficial mutation is not true.

Besides, on this point again, when have evolutionary scientists ever denied that an initial inherent resistance is not present in this example, it is however by definition a beneficial mutation. If some naturally resistant bacteria exist in such a way that they are different enough from their peers to survive an antibiotic attack, they are different from their peers on a genetic level, enough of these mutations and you can arrive at new species, as has been proven in the lab. You have yet to outline where it has not been proven by the way...

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #94 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:23pm

Hmm... please forgive me if that sounds like you think beneficial mutation is not true.

Whether it is 'true' (I assume you mean whether it actually happens) is irrelevant to this argument. What matters is wher it can be tested by experiment. It can't, because the theory makes no predictions about the outcome of such an experiment. In fact it would tend to predict that such an experiment would not produce beneficial mutations, so any experiment that failed to produce one would not disprove the theory.

it is however by definition a beneficial mutation

By that definition, all of our DNA is beneficial mutations. Which makes the observations meaningless.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #95 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:37pm

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions?

You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say, you have no base for your argument and you are just another religious piece of sh!t trying to erode the merits of science.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #96 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:44pm

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions?

Why? Failure of science to explain something is no reason to change the definition of science. The presence or absence of God is of no consequence to science.

You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say

Correct, and neither does science.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

zoso

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 512

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #97 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:18pm

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:44pm:

Tell me then freediver, erase god from the scenario, tell me how life arose out of rudimentary elements without being made up of only random mutations and chemical reactions?

Why? Failure of science to explain something is no reason to change the definition of science. The presence or absence of God is of no consequence to science.

You cannot answer this question without either accepting evolution or claiming that 'god did it' which means you have nothing to say

Correct, and neither does science.

You are the one here redefining science, sh!t dude you aren't even redifining it, you are twisting the evidence that is laid bare in front of you, redefining what evolution is, redefining what empirical studies conclude. You are full of hot air as has been mentioned.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #98 - Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:23pm

You are the one here redefining science

You are implying there was already a definition. There wasn't. At least, there wasn't a meaningful one that resembles how the term science is used today.

you are twisting the evidence that is laid bare in front of you, redefining what evolution is

I don't recall redefining what evolution is. Do you mean the distinction I draw between natural selection and evolution?

redefining what empirical studies conclude

I doubt the claims made on that site you referred to resemble in any way the claims made by the people who did the original experiments.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Christian biologist launches lawsuit
Reply #99 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 10:49am

Christian biologist launches lawsuit

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Christian-biologist-launches-lawsuit/2007/12/08/1196813062142.html

A Christian biologist is suing the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, claiming he was fired for refusing to accept evolution, lawyers involved in the case say.

Nathaniel Abraham, an Indian national who describes himself as a "Bible-believing Christian," said in the suit filed in US District Court in Boston that he was fired in 2004 because he would not accept evolution as scientific fact.

The latest US academic spat over science and religion was reported in The Boston Globe newspaper. Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which is representing Abraham, said he was seeking $US500,000 ($A570,000) in compensation.

The zebrafish specialist said his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed shortly after telling his superior he did not accept evolution because he believed the Bible presented a true account of human creation.

Abraham, who was dismissed eight months after he was hired, said he was willing to do research using evolutionary concepts but that he had been required to accept Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact or lose his job.

The case underscores tension between scientists, who see creationist views as anti-science, and evangelical Christians who argue that protections of religious freedom enshrined in the US Constitution extend to scientific settings.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #100 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 12:24pm

Feediver thinks that all science must be testable by men in white coats in lab experiments. There are plenty of other fields besides evolution where this is not always possible. Geologists can't go back in time, astronomers can't hold stars in their hands. They observe the natural evidence and infer how the natural world works using multiple lines of evidence.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48856 At my desk.	Re: Evolution v's Religion Reply #101 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 1:46pm Feediver thinks that all science must be testable by men in white coats in lab experiments. Quite the opposite actually, as I explain here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #102 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 3:19pm

Yes but you said this:

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

My point is that there are plenty of cases in science where you can't design an experiment to prove a theory. You have to go by natural observation, the geological record etc and determine which theory best fits the observations. You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis do you not? The only way you could prove this by experiment would be to have a duplicate planet earth with no human activity and a few hundred years up your sleeve!

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #103 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 5:09pm

Quite right pjb. A tree is. One can observe it but not prove it. It just is. So where did it come from? Well one can say a seed from a tree before it and keep going back. But none of that is observation as you weren't here a thousand or a million years ago. You have to have faith that things remained the same.

What if they did not? Well, there is no evidence at all because science runs out and faith takes over. Now there is no difference between the believer and the non-believer. They are both relying on faith. Each of a different kind.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Evolution v's Religion
Reply #104 - Dec 8^th, 2007 at 8:50pm

My point is that there are plenty of cases in science where you can't design an experiment to prove a theory.

I don't claim that that is what science is about. You can't actually prove anything from a scientific perspective. It's about being able to design an experiment that would disprove it, if it were false.

You have to go by natural observation, the geological record etc and determine which theory best fits the observations.

Defining science this way would allow many clearly unscientific fields into the field of science - for example 'natural' remedies based on witchcraft, creationism etc.

You believe human induced global warming has a scientific basis do you not?

Sure. If it is wrong, it will be proven wrong. However, it is built up of many separate and independently testable theories. The politics of the issue is rooted in risk management, not science.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged