Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[Insane_Duck]

Godwin's law?

Gotta love it.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Delusions of persecution, AV -- are you that desperate to feel special?

The Christian Persecution complex holds a certain sway for them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Christian Persecution complex holds a certain sway for them.

Especially for those who have absolutely nothing else going for them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry, but this is kind of funny. It only shows all the more why my example is a good one. I once challenged a biologist with this question: If we had the ability to duplicate the initial conditions that produced the earth, would we reproduce the same evolutionary result?

His answer: probably not because mutations are random.

So, just as in my example, evolution cannot guarantee a test that will produce the "same" result every time. I think I know what your reply to that will be, but it's safer for me to just let you say it.

My response is that your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. I'm talking about two people observing the same thing and getting the same answer. You bring up hypotheticals about time travel and the tautology that the evidence would be different if it were different as a response? Please try again.

 

[KCfromNC]

Large scale phenotypic changes aren't assumed, they're inferred from the evidence.

Or in some cases, observed in real time. Polyploidy in plants, for example.

But by even giving examples, we're going to fall into the "that's still the same kind" nonsense objection from creationists.

 

[KCfromNC]

At this point in the thread, I still have no idea what assumptions you think that scientists are making, and no idea of how competing assumptions could lead to different understandings of, say, comparative genomics. Could you list some of these assumptions?

The only real assumption is that there's some sort of consistent reality out there which we can observe. I'm not even sure that's an assumption, because we can test that various observations are consistent with each other.

Even creationists use this assumption - they read the Bible and assume that the words don't rearrange themselves into different books each time they look - and that their memory is reliable enough to know if such a change happened. Yet somehow this same fundamental assumption is bad when scientists do it because leads to problems with their interpretation of one of the several contradictory creation stories from a long-dead culture half-way around the world written in a language they don't understand. Or something like that.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you're going to ask, "What evidence?" I can cite M.K. Burke's article in Nature.
Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

It's weird that none of these sources which you think are providing evidence against large scale evolution ever actually indicate that are doing so. It's almost as if the experts who are doing the primary research have a different understanding of what their work means than you do. I guess we'll all have to decide for ourselves who better understands the science.

 

[rjc34]

In other words, check our Christianity at the door, right?

It would have been nice if some of us "science age plebeians" would have abstained from keeping silent when the physical & life sciences reared its ugly head in Germany, wouldn't it?

Oh, so Godwin'd.

But no. As the majority of Christians will tell you, science and Christianity are very compatible. You simply reject science all together, and thus have really no reason to be here.

 

[AV1611VET]

As the majority of Christians will tell you, science and Christianity are very compatible.

I don't need the majority of Christians telling me that.

I have a set of standards that tell them exactly where I stand on compatibility.

You simply reject science all together...

No -- no I don't -- no, I don't simply reject science all together [sic].

... and thus have really no reason to be here.

This is why I'm glad you (and people like you) are not in administration here.

Your misjudging of where and what I stand for would have to be overridden.

 

[rjc34]

I don't need the majority of Christians telling me that.

I have a set of standards that tell them exactly where I stand on compatibility.

Ah yes, your curious ability to infallibly interpret your religious text.

No -- no I don't -- no, I don't simply reject science all together [sic].

*Altogether*, whoops. And of course, you just accept anything that passes your boolean system. How could I have forgotten about that!

This is why I'm glad you (and people like you) are not in administration here.

Your misjudging of where and what I stand for would have to be overridden.

Don't you ever feel like preaching and derailing conversations will ever get old?

And don't forget those counting threads to inflate your post number -- without such a ludicrous number of posts, you wouldn't be able to talk down to new members, or even old members with 'unimpressive' post counts. Quantity over quality, amirite?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't need the majority of Christians telling me that.

I have a set of standards that tell them exactly where I stand on compatibility.

Your ego, AV -- yes, we all already know.

 

[AV1611VET]

And don't forget those counting threads to inflate your post number -- without such a ludicrous number of posts, you wouldn't be able to talk down to new members, or even old members with 'unimpressive' post counts. Quantity over quality, amirite?

When someone tells me I have never said [this], or never said [that], I am usually going to point them to my post count.

I get people here who tell me I have never admitted I'm wrong, have never changed my stance on an issue, or never explained [whatever].

That will usually trigger a response pointing to my post count.

That would be like I, going to another site, and telling someone who has 1000 posts that he never once said how old he is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When someone tells me I have never said [this], or never said [that], I am usually going to point them to my post count.

Which proves nothing, since 99.999% of your posts have no meaningful content whatsoever.

... and then there are your counting threads.

 

[Lillen]

Evolution has been falsified! Not all species or individuals within the spiecies evolve, we have something that speaks against!

I can find arguments that we evolve towards reptiles, that fills the need of a symmetric idea! YES, i can argue and varify this!

 

[Lillen]

I base my faith on personal experiece! ofcourse there will be people claiming that my experience has nothing to do with facts, but for me those experiences are for real! for instance being delivered from a spirit of accustion, and see that satan has driven out himself, and continues to do that in my life! when it comes to this, it is up to the listener to chose if he wants to believe me or not!


Jesus called the worlds greates sinner to him, and i was saved and continues to be saved by my faith in him!

 

[Insane_Duck]

Evolution has been falsified! Not all species or individuals within the spiecies evolve, we have something that speaks against!

As I doubt English is your native language, I would suggest getting Firefox. Although that might not help the grammar.

Either way, Evolution doesn't require a species to evolve as one (irrespective of the individuals) and it also doesn't predict that all animals will evolve at an equal rate. (i.e. Sharks and Crocodiles)

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can find arguments that we evolve towards reptiles, that fills the need of a symmetric idea! YES, i can argue and varify this!

We are not evolving into reptiles. We split from them roughly (I think) 200 million years ago and aren't likely to go back. But try to verify it, I dare you.

 

[Lillen]

The idea is still set forth, one argument is that those adult that are conservative when it comes to sexlife will not breed more children then the adult that are immature!

To draw an example, "do you want to dance!" or "lets have sex" whom do you believe will breed most offspring? Doing career is a priority among the more conservative in sexlife, making them unwilling to breed children!

 

[Nostromo]

No -- no I don't -- no, I don't simply reject science all together [sic].

Science is a process. When you reject the results of science based on your boolean standards, you're rejecting the validity of the process. The process is either valid, or invalid.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry, but I am extremely short on time at present. If you think there are substantial numbers of genuine cases of incomensurability within, say, the last 150 years of science history, could you just give some of them?

This leaves the impression that if I said more, your reply would only be a hip shot.

At this point in the thread, I still have no idea what assumptions you think that scientists are making, and no idea of how competing assumptions could lead to different understandings of, say, comparative genomics.

I don't either. My experience is in mechanics, where I am very much aware of the assumptions underpinning the science I use and the implications of those assumptions. I get the impression that people think I have no respect for science because I don't take it as some kind of absolute truth. That is not at all the case. Understanding the limitations of mechanics better informs my use of it.

It also seems that (so far) no one involved with this thread really knows what the assumptions of biology are. I'm not talking about vague, philosophical generalities. I'm talking about codified assumptions - like what physics can point to. I tried looking for them myself and didn't find much. A few people have taken a shot at it, but not people with high standing in the biological sciences and nothing I've found seems to be generally accepted. In fact, the most common comment I've found is to point to physics & chemistry and say that biology is built upon those sciences. Not sure I completely agree with that from what I understand of it.

So, let's take comparative genomics. A good place to start would be to look at a respected textbook dealing with the subject. Is there one you would suggest?

 

[Blayz]

I don't either. My experience is in mechanics, where I am very much aware of the assumptions underpinning the science I use and the implications of those assumptions.

I know very little about mechanics. Could you list these assumptions and their implications? It might help answering the question regards biology. Like sfs, I really don't understand what you are asking.