2005 Top Award for Evolution -AAAS

[vipertaja]

Why have none of the replies to this point attempted to answer the question or admitted they do not know the answer?

GoSeminoles did actually answer it.

 

[SamCJ]

Yes, random mutations are assumed a priori because scientist are conspiring to rid the world of God.

Spoken like a drunken wrestler. I doubt you will cite evidence to support your conspiracy theory. Does it resemble your Godless theory?

 

[SamCJ]

GoSeminoles did actually answer it.

Did not.

 

[vipertaja]

Did not.

Actually yes he did as I understand the topic.

 

[rjw]

Read the OP. This reply of yours does not address the contribution of belief in randomness to the ideas of the biologists.

Hello SamCJ,

Read the OP. This reply of yours does not address the contribution of belief in randomness to the ideas of the biologists.

I am finding it hard to determine exactly what your question is and the above quotation only adds to my confusion.

Are you saying that random processes are not observed in nature and the fact that biologists appeal to them is therefore a matter of a scientist’s faith that random processes really do exist, even though they have not been observed?


Regards, Roland

 

[SamCJ]

Actually yes he did as I understand the topic.

You had better reread the OP. Do you even know what the biologists ideas are about that were cited for the awards? Any sensible reply to the OP would have to show how the belief in randomness contributed to those award winnig ideas of the biologists who came up with them.

The longer these non-answers continue the more I am persuaded that the awards were merely labeled "evolutionist" in order to influence the courts and public opinion.

 

[SamCJ]

Hello SamCJ,




I am finding it hard to determine exactly what your question is and the above quotation only adds to my confusion.

Are you saying that random processes are not observed in nature and the fact that biologists appeal to them is therefore a matter of a scientist’s faith that random processes really do exist, even though they have not been observed?

Regards, Roland

No, I am not saying that. I believe it is true, but it is irrelevant to my question. I believe that biologist can study similarities in living organisms and come up with good ideas, without believing or knowing why the differences came about. AAAS says that these biologists ideas sprang from a belief that mutations are an accident of nature that happen randomly. I simply want a detailed explanation of why AAAS attributes the biologists' ideas to "evolution."

 

[USincognito]

Here's a novel idea. How about intstead of referencing a news article and making sweeping, yet amorphous references to accidents and tornados in junkyards, you actually look at the AAAS website for their news release?

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1222breakthrough.shtml

In 2005, scientists piled up new insights about evolution at the genetic level and the birth of species, including information that could help us lead healthier lives in the future. Ironically, these often-startling discoveries occurred in a year when backers of “intelligent design” and other opponents of evolution sought to escalate challenges to this fundamental concept.

This milestone, plus nine other research advances, make up Science’s list of the top 10 scientific developments in 2005, chosen for their profound implications for society and the advancement of science. Science’s Top Ten list appears in the 23 December 2005 issue of the journal Science.

Many of this year’s breakthrough studies followed evolution at the genetic level....

How about you actually read the AAAS page and reformulate your question in the OP?

 

[rjw]

Hello SamCJ,




I am finding it hard to determine exactly what your question is and the above quotation only adds to my confusion.

Are you saying that random processes are not observed in nature and the fact that biologists appeal to them is therefore a matter of a scientist’s faith that random processes really do exist, even though they have not been observed?


Regards, Roland

Hello again SamCJ,


Have a look at the following link:-

http://www.stcynic.com/kitzmiller_342.pdf

In particular, read from pages 64 through to 89. It explains why “intelligent design” explanations – as they are currently constituted – fail. You will also see that the naturalists were able to convince yet another judge that there is indeed plenty of evidence that natural (random, non-random, non intelligently designed) explanations do work.

Take note of the part where the judge mentions that ID places an unreasonable burden of proof on the naturalists. That is on page 78. In the previous several pages, the judge describes the evidence by which he makes that claim.


Regards, Roland

 

[SamCJ]

See: http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,11965-5182861,00.htmlThe core of the arguments on this thread are about whether the differences that result in greater survivability are a result of intelligence or are random, physical accidents. Can some of you atheists explain for me in greater detail how the alleged promising developments are were dependent on the belief that the differences are a result of a random, physical accident rather than intelligence?

Okay, I have reread my own OP and added the word "how." Perhaps that explains the non-answers I have received so far. Now can you address the question?

 

[SamCJ]

Hello again SamCJ,


Have a look at the following link:-

http://www.stcynic.com/kitzmiller_342.pdf

In particular, read from pages 64 through to 89. It explains why “intelligent design” explanations – as they are currently constituted – fail. You will also see that the naturalists were able to convince yet another judge that there is indeed plenty of evidence that natural (random, non-random, non intelligently designed) explanations do work.

Take note of the part where the judge mentions that ID places an unreasonable burden of proof on the naturalists. That is on page 78. In the previous several pages, the judge describes the evidence by which he makes that claim.


Regards, Roland

I doubt your link makes any reference to the awards or knows the biologists' ideas that were said by AAAS to be evolutionistic. I added a word to my question that could be important to understanding it. I would appreciate you taking another look at it.

 

[rjw]

No, I am not saying that. I believe it is true, but it is irrelevant to my question. I believe that biologist can study similarities in living organisms and come up with good ideas, without believing or knowing why the differences came about. AAAS says that these biologists ideas sprang from a belief that mutations are an accident of nature that happen randomly. I simply want a detailed explanation of why AAAS attributes the biologists' ideas to "evolution."

Gidday SamCJ,

No, I am not saying that. I believe it is true, but it is irrelevant to my question. I believe that biologist can study similarities in living organisms and come up with good ideas, without believing or knowing why the differences came about. AAAS says that these biologists ideas sprang from a belief that mutations are an accident of nature that happen randomly. I simply want a detailed explanation of why AAAS attributes the biologists' ideas to "evolution."

Studying similarities in living organisms is mere data collection. It is no more than observing the sky and saying “Look that star is bright, that one is faint, that one is red, that one is blue, that one moves, that one doesn’t”.

Scientific theories are about explaining the data. Thus theories tell us why that star is bright, that one is faint, that one is red, that one is blue etc. And it is the same with biology. There are a million observations we could make but we also want to know about why animal A looks a bit like animal B and less like animal C. We wish to know why fossil X has characteristics of both animal A and animal B etc.

That explanation is the ToE.

Your post implies that an idea is the same as an observation. It is not. An observation is the same as the collection of a piece of data. An idea is the theory which makes sense of that data.

AAAS says that these biologists ideas sprang from a belief that mutations are an accident of nature that happen randomly. I simply want a detailed explanation of why AAAS attributes the biologists' ideas to "evolution."

If what you say here is a correct interpretation of the AAAS’s stance (and I am not suggesting any misrepresentation by you here) then a few points:-

1) We can only use that which we know to scientifically explain something. The agents which cause mutations are things which generally act randomly – e.g. radioactivity, improper re-linking of DNA etc. Scientists have done a lot of work on the causes of mutation. Hence they know about these things. Scientists cannot talk about things that they have not observed.

2) One has to be a tad careful in use of terminology. DNA is a complex molecule and not all parts of a molecule mutate with equal ease. This is something else which is observed. Hence, while radioactivity may be random, its effects on DNA maybe slightly non-random. Furthermore, when DNA breaks, some parts of the molecule break more easily than other parts. This is another observation. Thus, if re-linking is going to be a cause of variation (mutation?) then some kinds of mutation will occur more readily than other kinds. And so it goes.

3) Random can mean several things – one is completely unpredictable, another is predictable but we do not know how to do so.

4) Hence your words that the AAAS attributes the biologist’s idea (that mutations are random) to evolution makes no sense. What does make sense is to say that part of the mechanism of evolution is random mutation.


Visitors have just arrived for Xmas – so I must go. This post has to be abandoned. If I see this thread continuing tomorrow then I may jump back in.

Regards, and Merry Xmas, Roland

 

[vipertaja]

How do you disprove the existence of a completely undetectable factor that
influences everything in an undetected way?

Is this what you mean? The dragon in the garage argument?

 

[Grengor]

Should I even ask.... what is the dragon in the garage argument?

 

[SamCJ]

Here's a novel idea. How about intstead of referencing a news article and making sweeping, yet amorphous references to accidents and tornados in junkyards, you actually look at the AAAS website for their news release?

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1222breakthrough.shtml



How about you actually read the AAAS page and reformulate your question in the OP?

Thanks for the link. I have been there. Perhaps I should complete redo the opening OP. I have added the word "how" to make it clearer. It seems to me that the only one of the three biologists ideas that creates any added hope for a better life in the future is the study of chimps to find a cure for AIDS.

My question is why do biologists need to beleive in the randomness of mutations in order to study the chimps genome? As far as the future is concerned, why do they need to believe in randomness of mutations in order to come up with a cure for AIDS from the study of chimps? It seems to me that the manner in which the differences between chimps and humans came about is irrelevant to the value to studying chimps in the hope of finding a cure for an ailment of mankind. Here is a quote from the article you cited.

"Many of this year’s breakthrough studies followed evolution at the genetic level. In October this year, an international team of researchers unveiled a map of the chimpanzee genome. Scientists are already poring over the chimpanzee genome and another international effort, the biggest map to date of single-letter variations in the human genetic sequence, hoping to get a better glimpse of the human species' evolutionary history. The two studies give scientists new material for studying conditions from AIDS to heart disease, and may lay the groundwork for a future of personalized genetic medicine."

I cannot figure out much from the other studies that were awarded. As I understand, they filled some gaps in EoT, but were not acclaimed as promising any future benefits to mankind.

 

[vipertaja]

Should I even ask.... what is the dragon in the garage argument?

I have a dragon that is completely undetectable. It lives in my garage.

 

[vipertaja]

Thanks for the link. I have been there. Perhaps I should complete redo the opening OP. I have added the word "how" to make it clearer. It seems to me that the only one of the three biologists ideas that creates any added hope for a better life in the future is the study of chimps to find a cure for AIDS.

My question is why do biologists need to beleive in the randomness of mutations in order to study the chimps genome? As far as the future is concerned, why do they need to believe in randomness of mutations in order to come up with a cure for AIDS from the study of chimps? It seems to me that the manner in which the differences between chimps and humans came about is irrelevant to the value to studying chimps in the hope of finding a cure for an ailment of mankind. Here is a quote from the article you cited.

"Many of this year’s breakthrough studies followed evolution at the genetic level. In October this year, an international team of researchers unveiled a map of the chimpanzee genome. Scientists are already poring over the chimpanzee genome and another international effort, the biggest map to date of single-letter variations in the human genetic sequence, hoping to get a better glimpse of the human species' evolutionary history. The two studies give scientists new material for studying conditions from AIDS to heart disease, and may lay the groundwork for a future of personalized genetic medicine."

I cannot figure out much from the other studies that were awarded. As I understand, they filled some gaps in EoT, but were not acclaimed as promising any future benefits to mankind.

The problem is...if one should not assume a cause of some form for
mutations...how is that radically different from mutations "just happening"?

 

[SamCJ]

Hello again SamCJ,


Have a look at the following link:-

http://www.stcynic.com/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Regards, Roland

I tried to open this link but got only a blank page. Perhaps I did not wait long enough.

 

[vipertaja]

I tried to open this link but got only a blank page. Perhaps I did not wait long enough.

Worked for me at least.

 

[TheBear]

It's a pdf file.