Creationists and research

[Bushido216]

I love this kid. He's using empty rhetoric and philosphy that philosophers would call hogwash and telling people with degrees in the field that what they're studying isn't science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This kind of an assertion stands until refuted, thats how it works in philosophy. Thats all I have to do and until you realize that you are arguing from a premise, rather then a proof, you are going in circles.

But we are no longer arguing philosophy, we are arguing science. You have asserted (so far) that natural selection is philosophy, that it doesn't make predictions, and consequently, that there is no null hypothesis.

I provided an example of a scientific experiment which made a prediction with respect to natural selection and confirmed that prediction. IOW, I directly refuted your original claims.

You are now asserting that the results in question were due to the laws of inheritance and not natural selection. Therefore, your dispute is with the scientific paper in question and it is up to you to support your assertion.

If you want to stay in philosophical la-la land, that's your call. But you're not going to get anywhere by doing so.

 

[Larry]

In answer to my question, "When looking up the theory of evolution in the library, what section do you go to? The philosophy section or the science section?"

You say....

I dont need to do either, I allready know what it means.

And you wonder why you are recieving unfavorable remarks from others.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

First of all, it is spelled transcendental philosophy (not transendental philosophy).



It sounds like a primitive form of post modernism
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/schellin.htm

 

[toff]

No, I am making the assertion that the evidence is irrelevant. Natural selection is metaphysics, I would think you would be proud of how naturalism supplanted God as the transendent principle in living systems.

This is just idiocy. Evidence is irrelevant? Please. Natural selection is not metaphysics; that is nonsense. It is an observed phenomenon, studied by science. And sorry, naturalism hasn't supplanted god as anything, last I heard. Something like 90% of the world is theistic, which makes your assertion that god has been supplanted demonstrable nonsense.

 

[Larry]

Personally, I don't fault people on their spelling here. Heck, I'm probably one of the worst spellers here.

Content of the message is much more important to me.

 

[Brahe]

Sure, this is is another demonstration of the laws of inheritance that natural selection hides behind. This is not a valid point its a diversion.

The laws of inheritance that natural selection hides behind? What does this even mean?

Alright, on the off-chance that you'll respond intelligibly to any of the posts in this thread, here's natural selection. You know that in a population or organisms, not all individuals are identical, right? Furthermore, some of these differences are heritable, and some of these heritable differences alter the individuals' abilities to reproduce successfully. Heritable differences that favorably alter the chances at reproduction tend to spread through the population while heritable differences that disfavorbly alter the chances at reproduction tend to be eliminated from the population.

Knowing this, phaedrus, can you now tell us what observations we would expect to make if natural selection were accurate? Can you also tell us what observations would falsify natrual selection? Keep in mind that not all environments are the same.

That makes for poor satire so I imagine you would not be interested.

Bonus assignment: define "satire" for us and point out an example or two of its use in this thread.

 

[phaedrus]

The laws of inheritance that natural selection hides behind? What does this even mean?

It was decades before natural selection was sythesised into biology and the laws of inheritance, even though they were developed at the same time. Natural selection (aka evolution, or phylogeny) does not represent a law of science it is a way of looking at things. Natural selection is a premise of a philosophy that pretends to be proven, its not an established fact it is a philosophy.

Alright, on the off-chance that you'll respond intelligibly to any of the posts in this thread, here's natural selection. You know that in a population or organisms, not all individuals are identical, right? Furthermore, some of these differences are heritable, and some of these heritable differences alter the individuals' abilities to reproduce successfully. Heritable differences that favorably alter the chances at reproduction tend to spread through the population while heritable differences that disfavorbly alter the chances at reproduction tend to be eliminated from the population.

Ok, on the off-chance that you are just looking for clarification these inherited traits are genetics. 22,000 experiments by Mendal produced identifiable patterns and formulas for artifical selection, no such experiments were performed by Darwin. They are not only not possible, they are not nessacary.

Look, I'm a philosophy major and I simply recognized that natural selection is a systematic philosophy. I would agree that is a scientific philosophy but that does not make it natural science. I'm amazed that evolutionists don't agree and go on to compare the philosophy of creationism and evolution. Consider this, if we agreed on matters of fact with regards to data produced by natural science, the way that creationists and evolutionists often do, what is left? Philosophy perhaps?

Knowing this, phaedrus, can you now tell us what observations we would expect to make if natural selection were accurate? Can you also tell us what observations would falsify natrual selection? Keep in mind that not all environments are the same.

Natural selection is not an empirical science, that doesn't mean that the premise is invalid. We are debating semantics and metaphysics. If we recognize this then we can actually look at the facts more objectivly. Keep in mind I never once said that the premise of natural selection is invalid, it does at certain levels corrospond with reality. My point is that it is metaphysics, not empirical science. I have no idea why it is so important to argue otherwise.

Bonus assignment: define "satire" for us and point out an example or two of its use in this thread.

Satire: poetic medley. a literary work in which vices, folies, stupidities, abuses, etc. are held up to ridicule and contempt.

This is just idiocy. Evidence is irrelevant?...Something like 90% of the workd is theistic, which makes your assertition that god had been supplanted demonstrable nonsense.

If you want to stay in philosophical la-la land, that's your call. But you're not going to get anywhere by doing so.

Thats just on this page.

 

[Genetica]

phaedrus

I suggest that you read a book called "The Origin of Species" to learn how this "philosophy" you dislike so much came to be. Darwin proposed a mechanism (not a philosophy, mind you) to explain natural observations. And you seem to have an inate uncapacity to diferentiate Genetics from Natural selection... please, educate yourself before you come here spouting nonsense.

 

[phaedrus]

Maltus essay was cited in 'Origin of Species', it was in fact based on it.

"These two laws ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature; and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe; and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations. " (Malthus on Population, Oct 1838)

I read 'Origin of Species' and its philosophy not science.

And you seem to have an inate uncapacity to diferentiate Genetics from Natural selection... please, educate yourself before you come here spouting nonsense.

The fact that Genetics is distinct from natural selection is my whole point. I suggest you heed your own advice

 

[Thurisaz Sowulo]

Phaedrus,

you must be really scared, no?

While it looks like you would like to convince others of the supposed fallacy of evolutionary theory, you really are desperately trying to convince yourself. You know by now that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim, or else you would have made things a lot easier for you by presenting it. You only play cheap word games and are pulling ludicrous evasion tactics.
So why do you cling to your claim? Because you built your entire life, or at least an important part of it, on this claim. You need it to be true because (you think) your whole world will go down in flames if you admit that it's false. And you know it's false. Your conscience is telling you this, again and again. But you have been told that the bible must be true.

My advice: Forget it. Truth cannot be silenced once it has found its way into your mind. You are only torturing yourself (well, you have the right to do so - it's your life) and others (that's not okay).

You are trapped in the net of fear and guilt that fundie cults use to catch new pawns. Get out of it and you will feel better.

 

[phaedrus]

Phaedrus,

you must be really scared, no?

No your satire barely amuses me, it lacks substance so its easily dismissed as pedantic.

While it looks like you would like to convince others of the supposed fallacy of evolutionary theory, you really are desperately trying to convince yourself. You know by now that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim, or else you would have made things a lot easier for you by presenting it. You only play cheap word games and are pulling ludicrous evasion tactics.

You have a nerve to call my assertions 'word tricks', since you have substituted satire for reason.

So why do you cling to your claim? Because you built your entire life, or at least an important part of it, on this claim. You need it to be true because (you think) your whole world will go down in flames if you admit that it's false. And you know it's false. Your conscience is telling you this, again and again. But you have been told that the bible must be true.

My world would be unchanged if I converted to the cult of modernist dogma. You are begging the question here.

My advice: Forget it. Truth cannot be silenced once it has found its way into your mind. You are only torturing yourself (well, you have the right to do so - it's your life) and others (that's not okay).

You are trapped in the net of fear and guilt that fundie cults use to catch new pawns. Get out of it and you will feel better.

Speaking only for myself the last thing that the fundamentalists need is you. The fact is that I find this kind of satire fun and interesting. Now as far as fear and guilt, I'm not the one with that particular problem, in fact, I wonder if you are not just projecting your own phobias on me.

 

[Genetica]

Natural selection (aka evolution, or phylogeny)

Really? rather natural selection is one mechanism through which evolution takes place.

genetics. The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.

evolution. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations

natural selection. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Selection
1.
a. The act or an instance of selecting or the fact of having been selected.
b. One that is selected.
4. Biology. A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring.
The fact that Genetics is distinct from natural selection is my whole point.

From Harcoff’s post:

A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.

How’s differential survival and ability to reproduce fit into Mendelian Genetics?
If you look at Harcoff's example of selection in vivo and say that's due to genetics alone, you are the one that cannot discriminate between simple inheritance and differential survival due to inheritable characteristics.

Diferential survival is a key point to natural selection - as is genetics.

 

[phaedrus]

Really? rather natural selection is one mechanism through which evolution takes place.

Notice you are talking in gereralities. A mouse trap is a mechanism with identifiable parts and an explicite function, natural selection is a gernerality.

genetics. The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.

The branch of biology you are refering to includes, among other things, the Mendel laws of inheritance. The law of segregation and the law of independent assortment are reduced to ratios, natural selection is not, because it cannot.

evolution. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations

Evolution: 'an unfolding', the development of a species, organism or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny.

natural selection. The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

natural selection: the process by which those individuals (of a species) with characters that help them to become adapted to their specific environment tend to leave more progeny and transmit their characters, while those less able to become adapted tend to leave fewer there is a progressive tendency in the species to a greater degree of adaptiation.

From Harcoff’s post:

How’s differential survival and ability to reproduce fit into Mendelian Genetics?
If you look at Harcoff's example of selection in vivo and say that's due to genetics alone, you are the one that cannot discriminate between simple inheritance and differential survival due to inheritable characteristics.

Diferential survival is a key point to natural selection - as is genetics.

Its neither a ratio like the natural laws of genetics or a science like the law of independent assortment. The feeble attempts to identify evolution with genetics is pointless, there is no basis for believing that it is anything other then a philosophy of science. The science is and was developed independently.

 

[Thurisaz Sowulo]

No your satire barely amuses me [...]The fact is that I find this kind of satire fun and interesting.

Why do I feel that you're not convincing in any way?

By the way, what phobias do you think I have that I project onto you?

P. S. I meant what I wrote. No satire here.

 

[napajohn]

Phaedrus,

you must be really scared, no?

While it looks like you would like to convince others of the supposed fallacy of evolutionary theory, you really are desperately trying to convince yourself. You know by now that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim, or else you would have made things a lot easier for you by presenting it. You only play cheap word games and are pulling ludicrous evasion tactics.
So why do you cling to your claim? Because you built your entire life, or at least an important part of it, on this claim. You need it to be true because (you think) your whole world will go down in flames if you admit that it's false. And you know it's false. Your conscience is telling you this, again and again. But you have been told that the bible must be true.

My advice: Forget it. Truth cannot be silenced once it has found its way into your mind. You are only torturing yourself (well, you have the right to do so - it's your life) and others (that's not okay).

You are trapped in the net of fear and guilt that fundie cults use to catch new pawns. Get out of it and you will feel better.

Well then since truth cannot be silenced..allow that the controversy of evolution be taught..what do EVOS have to fear if truth is on its side, it should win so convincingly that the populace would make evolution the unquestioned basis for describing the origins and development of life...If anything, it would prevent someone like Dr Dean Kenyon from losing the ability to teach a Freshman biology class because he has doubts about evolution...
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9401/scopes.html
To quote Jack nicholson, "you want the truth?..You can't handle the truth"

 

[Larry]

This thread is getting richer by the minute!! Let me get some popcorn and settle in for the show.

 

[notto]

Well then since truth cannot be silenced..allow that the controversy of evolution be taught..what do EVOS have to fear if truth is on its side, it should win so convincingly that the populace would make evolution the unquestioned basis for describing the origins and development of life...If anything, it would prevent someone like Dr Dean Kenyon from losing the ability to teach a Freshman biology class because he has doubts about evolution...
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9401/scopes.html
To quote Jack nicholson, "you want the truth?..You can't handle the truth"

The 'populace' of scientists have made evolution the unquestioned basis for describing biology (because it does it so well and better than any competing theory). That is why it is taught in biology class.

Would you want a history teacher who 'doubts' the holocaust or moon landing to teach, even when the majority of evidence and the years of study of their peers points to a conclusion that they are incorrect?

Doubting evolution isn't enough. It would need to be falsified (like young earth creationism has been). Many peope doubt Relativity but what really counts is the evidence and the evidence points to evolution and away from special creation just like the evidnece points to Relativity as being valid.

Scientists don't 'fear' the controversy because in the world of mainstream science, its literature, and its peer review, it does not exists and has been resolved. To most scientists and most teachers, it would just be a big waste of time to discuss a previously falsified theory like a young earth or creationism (much like teaching about a flat earth or geocentric solar system in a science class).

 

[Thurisaz Sowulo]

Well then since truth cannot be silenced..allow that the controversy of evolution be taught..what do EVOS have to fear if truth is on its side...

There is no controversy of evolutionary theory per se, only of some details. If "Evos" have to fear anthing then it's religious fanatics trying to impress those who don't know enough to see that the fanatics' "evidence" is a lie through and out.
I have yet to see any creationist who actually can present a piece of "evidence" that is not either a forgery or at least an argument from pure ignorance. You creationists all claim you have perfect evidence, and inevitably whatever you proudly present is always an Ancient Holy Lie (TM).
Gee, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Saviourmachine]

So my question to creationists is this: what research have you done into the theory of evolution? I'm not talking of creationists writings - they don't count. What scientific journals or books on the subject have you read? The theory of evolution is well-served by a number of popular science authors - Dawkins, Gould, Diamond, etc. Have you read any of those?

Hi, I've always tried to use my own mind (here in Holland I've to be a freethinker in even thinking of creation). But we're standing on the shoulders of giants, I'm aware of that. So I read Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, but not Diamond. What other authors can you recommend me?

I think we have to be a little bit nicer for each other, we all want to know the truth, isn't it? I was an atheist, on the moment I'm a christian, but I've always been: a truth seeker. My greatest discovery (last year) was that the truth can be a Personality too. It's like exploring a new world, it does change your thoughts, but it doesn't change your inborn knowledge about what's true. Don't be afraid of that!