"faith" in science

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Some believe we're stuck with evolution too? Don't you?

Yup, but thats just for lack of a better scientific theory.  Do you have one?  I would be happy to listen.  Besides, evolution works, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

PS - Creationism is not a scientific theory.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
if it ain't broke, don't fix it

Exactly.

BTW - I'm not a supporter of either theory now. The debate is so darned annoying.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Ok cool. I don't think I had any real point to asking you but to just see where you stood on it.

What things would prohibit your faith in evolution?

Prohibit my faith in evolution?  An unbiased study, performed by an atheist, using the scientific method, that is taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community that provides results contradicting the theory of evolution.  That wouldnt change it immediately, of course.  They would have to be able to repeat it a couple times... that I think, would work...

Oh, and if god came down and spoke to me.  Like, took me out for dinner and explained to me over an ice cream cone why Creationism is the way to go.  He would, of course, have to perform several miracles at my request so I could be pretty certain he was god.  That would shake my "faith" in the correctness of evolution I suppose.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone
 

if it aint broke, dont fix it

Exactly.

Exactly?  Are you suggesting creationism isn't broke and we shouldn't fix it?  Explain...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Prohibit my faith in evolution?  An unbiased study, performed by an atheist, using the scientific method, that is taken seriously by the rest of the scientific community that provides results contradicting the theory of evolution.  That wouldnt change it immediately, of course.  They would have to be able to repeat it a couple times... that I think, would work...

What would reasonably, in your mind, contradict evolutionary theory?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist

Exactly.

Exactly?  Are you suggesting creationism isn't broke and we shouldn't fix it?  Explain... [/B][/QUOTE]

Sure. He's right, arguably; neither evolution nor creation is "broken" for most people. Serious biologists would do well to adopt an evolutionary theory, if they want to make any progress. Most of us would be just fine believing that what we believe to be "animals" are actually complicated robots with the special quality that, when needed, they can replace functional parts of their bodies with meat to give us the illusion of living creatures.

In most cases, all we need to know is whether they're poisonous, whether they'll attack us, and whether we can eat them. The rest is idle speculation with purely recreational relevance.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Exactly?  Are you suggesting creationism isn't broke and we shouldn't fix it?  Explain...

What have you fixed by determining cows were once aquatic animals?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


What have you fixed by determining cows were once aquatic animals?

If I must fix something then I have "fixed" the fallacy that, "god put them down on earth with everything else"... the pursuit of knowledge alone renders such a determination desirable, without the added benefit of rendering a common belief a myth...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
If I must fix something then I have "fixed" the fallacy that, "god put them down on earth with everything else"... the pursuit of knowledge alone renders such a determination desirable, without the added benefit of rendering a common belief a myth...

How did I know you'd say that? LOL. Humanity did just fine for 1.5 million years(is that right?) without knowing they evolved.

You still haven't told me what reasonable evidence (possibility) would make you turn from the theory of evolution.

 

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by unworthyone


How did I know you'd say that? LOL. Humanity did just fine for 1.5 million years(is that right?) without knowing they evolved.

You still haven't told me what reasonable evidence (possibility) you think would make you turn from the theory of evolution.

 

Humanity did just fine?  Fine indeed... "Just fine" is the most relative assertion I've ever heard.  I suppose if you think Holy Wars, Heresy trials, witch hunts and the countless other atrocities we've exacted on ourselves out of ignorance is "just fine", then sure... we've done "just fine"... In the absence of a god to serve, I think the pursuit of knowledge is a pretty good way to fill the time...

Evidence?  Well, I already told you what would lead me to question evolutionary theory, perhaps you missed that post... but I'll get more specific, since you're bent on nitpicking...

A core part of microevolution is natural selection.  Say we had a population of mice with with long and short tails.  Now say an experiment was conducted over several years where only mice with the shortest tails were allowed to mate.  The rest were used for cosmetics testing.

Now, if after several years of our unnatural natural selection yielded mice with longer and longer tails I would have to go ask an evolutionary biologist, "Hey, whats goin' on, man?" and if he couldn't give me a reasonable explanation, I would have to start questioning evolution, now wouldn't I?

Disclaimer: Im not an evolutionary biologist and I'm guessing this example is bugged to all hell.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Humanity did just fine?  Fine indeed... "Just fine" is the most relative assertion I've ever heard.  I suppose if you think Holy Wars, Heresy trials, witch hunts and the countless other atrocities we've exacted on ourselves out of ignorance is "just fine", then sure... we've done "just fine"... In the absence of a god to serve, I think the pursuit of knowledge is a pretty good way to fill the time...

And I suppose you think we are doing better now? Flying planes into buildings, aborting innocent babies. BUILDING WEAPONS THAT CAN KILL ONE MILLION PEOPLE IN A MATTER OF TEN SECONDS!! Yeah..Real progress there.

A core part of microevolution is natural selection.  Say we had a population of mice with with long and short tails.  Now say an experiment was conducted over several years where only mice with the shortest tails were allowed to mate.  The rest were used for cosmetics testing.

Now, if after several years of our unnatural natural selection yielded mice with longer and longer tails I would have to go ask an evolutionary biologist, "Hey, whats goin' on, man?" and if he couldn't give me a reasonable explanation, I would have to start questioning evolution, now wouldn't I?
[/B]

You are right this would raise questions but the answer would be....long tails are still a genetic trait that can be passed through a generation of mice that may lay dorment for years and suddenly arise. So there will be an answer and you will likely accept it.

Evolutionists can take any evidence and make it part of their theory.

Now you make me wonder. You aren't even sure if your idea is contradictory to evolution but you believe in evolution. May I ask why you believe in evolution?

 

[Raging Atheist]

Negative.  You're talking about an exception, like an albino tiger, not the overall effect.  You're also confusing the tail length with a trait: I dont know for sure, but lets say it isn't a trait.

Evolution holds that in my experiment, over time, the tails would get shorter and stay that way.  Unless of course exposed to another population.

Regarding the snide comment, "You aren't even sure if your idea is contradictory to evolution but you believe in evolution. May I ask why you believe in evolution?"

I would say that I am certain it is contradictory to the theory of evolution, when I said my exampled was "bugged to hell" I was referring to outside influences that could effect my experiment such as tail length being a trait that could pop back up a generation later, as you were kind enough to point out.

As I said much earlier in this post in reply to your "some people feel we're trapped with evolution": yes, but its the best we got and I see nothing to contradict it or replace it.  Thats why I "believe in" evolution.

No, evolution cannot "take any evidence and make it part of the theory"... as my example clearly points out, there are all sorts of examples that would render evolution false... the problem, however, is that no one ever seems to get those results... *shrugs* go figure...

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Negative.  You're talking about an exception, like an albino tiger, not the overall effect.  You're also confusing the tail length with a trait: I dont know for sure, but lets say it isn't a trait.

Evolution holds that in my experiment, over time, the tails would get shorter and stay that way.  Unless of course exposed to another population.

Maybe someone else could settle this one?

No, evolution cannot "take any evidence and make it part of the theory"... as my example clearly points out, there are all sorts of examples that would render evolution false... the problem, however, is that no one ever seems to get those results... *shrugs* go figure... [/B]

Then I guess you need to find me another example that can have no exceptions. A solution without exception or chance is the only way to break evolution. Can you think of one? If evolution is, in all seriousness, a breakable theory, evolutionists should be able to provide a solution to breaking it that requires no chance or exceptions.

This is why evolution is considered "fact". They can't think of a way to break it because they can always rationalize any contradictory evidence. So either evolution is a perfect collection of truths or a perfect collection of fallacies.

One main component of evolution theory is duplicating mutation DNA. The fact that it can happen once and not die PROVES THE ENTIRE THEORY.

If only a single answered prayer made people believe that easily.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Then I guess you need to find me another example that can have no exceptions. A solution without exception or chance is the only way to break evolution. Can you think of one? If evolution is, in all seriousness, a breakable theory, evolutionists should be able to provide a solution to breaking it that requires no chance or exceptions.

Discovery of a modern genus within a well understood family, which upon examination included any of the following:

1)DNA exhibiting different chirality than that of all other known organisms.

2)Multiple characters derived with relation to the family, but shared with members of other classes. This entails that there also be a large number of primitive characters that require identification with said family. An example would be a (mammalian) organism which was warm-blooded, had hair, gave live birth, nursed its young, but was also bipedal, had feathers and wings, and a wishbone.

Other "breaking" discoveries would include:

1) Fossil primates or birds found in Devonian strata, also dating (by more than one radiometric method) to the Devonian age. Of course the fossils would have to exhibit enough detail that it could be established with certainty that they were primates or birds.

2) cytochrome c homology studies yielding a closer relationship between man (or any modern primate) and any modern fish than between man (or any modern primate) and any modern mammal. Alternatively man and yeast. This is not inconceivable from a design or creation standpoint: human cytochrome c works perfectly well in yeast that has had its own gene for cytochrome c turned "off".

This is why evolution is considered "fact". They can't think of a way to break it because they can always rationalize any contradictory evidence. So either evolution is a perfect collection of truths or a perfect collection of fallacies.

Above is listed contardictory evidence that, if found, could not be "rationalized away". At various times in the past there were numerous other such possible contradictory findings that would have been the death toll for darwinian or neo-darwinian theory. As it stands, each of those possibilities has been dismissed, one by one, in light of the evidence.

One main component of evolution theory is duplicating mutation DNA. The fact that it can happen once and not die PROVES THE ENTIRE THEORY.

What do you mean by "duplicating mutation DNA"? Could you please restate this? Why would (or does) that prove the entire theory?

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Discovery of a modern genus within a well understood family, which upon examination included any of the following:

1)DNA exhibiting different chirality than that of all other known organisms.

Unreasonable.

2)Multiple characters derived with relation to the family, but shared with members of other classes. This entails that there also be a large number of primitive characters that require identification with said family. An example would be a (mammalian) organism which was warm-blooded, had hair, gave live birth, nursed its young, but was also bipedal, had feathers and wings, and a wishbone.

Also unreasonable.

1) Fossil primates or birds found in Devonian strata, also dating (by more than one radiometric method) to the Devonian age. Of course the fossils would have to exhibit enough detail that it could be established with certainty that they were primates or birds.

There was an earthquake. A small flood. Something would be used.

2) cytochrome c homology studies yielding a closer relationship between man (or any modern primate) and any modern fish than between man (or any modern primate) and any modern mammal. Alternatively man and yeast. This is not inconceivable from a design or creation standpoint: human cytochrome c works perfectly well in yeast that has had its own gene for cytochrome c turned "off".

Unreasonable.

What do you mean by "duplicating mutation DNA"? Could you please restate this? Why would (or does) that prove the entire theory?

I thought that is what it is called. A dna strand duplicates then mutates adding new information instead of just changing existing information. Its necessary to add new information and for evolution to occur from the start. (from what I've heard)

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone
Unreasonable...
Also unreasonable...

Please explain why unreasonable. Any stereoisomer of DNA can have the same function as any other stereoisomer of DNA. Why then would it be unreasonable to find such?

Why could not a creature that has hair (on its head, for instance) not also have feathers on its wings, give live birth, nurse its young, and have a wishbone? There are many unexplored wildernesses where undiscovered fauna and flora exist. Why, apart from common descent, would we not expect shared derived characters to be found in organisms with radically different primitive characters? What is unreasonable about that?

There was an earthquake. A small flood. Something would be used.

Nope. If it was a primate found in Devonian strata, then maybe, but if it was radiometrically dated by two independent methods then nope. Nothing to use. No explanation for why three independent dating methods each put this primate older than the class Mammalia.

Unreasonable.

Why unreasonable. Cytochrome c does basically the same thing in all life forms. You can take away a yeast's cytochrome c and replace it with humans. Apart from common descent, why would we expect to never find that a human's cytochrome c was more similar to yeast than to a dogs?

I thought that is what it is called. A dna strand duplicates then mutates adding new information instead of just changing existing information. Its necessary to add new information and for evolution to occur from the start. (from what I've heard)

A duplication event may be necessary in order to add to the total (pan-specific) potential for diversity, and may in fact, be necessary to evolution. No one has proven that it is, but when an anti-evolutionist suggests that "information" cannot increase by mutation, this is an easy possibility to point out by which it could and does sometimes, happen. Whether it is the only possibility may be something for future generations of scientists to consider.

Why would (or does) this prove the entire theory? As far as I knew pointing this kind of event out was merely an answer to a specious argument by creationists.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Why would (or does) this prove the entire theory? As far as I knew pointing this kind of event out was merely an answer to a specious argument by creationists.

Well what other grounds for adding information to a DNA strand do you have that is readily observable?

Ok now I'm stepping over lines I normally have refused to cross.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Well what other grounds for adding information to a DNA strand do you have that is readily observable?

Ok now I'm stepping over lines I normally have refused to cross.

 

I am going to substitute the concepts of diversity and potential for diversity from biology for the term "information" that isn't clearly defined.

To the total genome of all life? I can think of none. To the existing genome of a specific organism?

Retroviral insertion
Transgenic insertion
(this one is a little bit weasly, but I let you figure out why frame shift or point mutation in a pseudogene, or in a working gene that no longer confers reproductive advantage to this particular organism.

Now, going back to the total "genome" of all life - I can think of no other apart from duplication events followed by mutations on one of the duplicate sequences. The fact that I can think of none does not mean none exist. The fact that we have yet to observe another mechanism for adding potential for diversity as well as diversity itself does not mean that there are none.

Neo-darwinism may even be wrong - it may not be a kind of mutation that provides the variability that natural selection (or some other mechanism?) acts upon to produce evolution. Yet we still have the facts of evolution to explain, and should the one explanation ultimately fail (for some currently unknown reason), we would still have the facts to explain.

Before we had neo-darwinism that incorporated mutation as the source for genetic variability, we had classical darwinism, that merely recognized the fact that genetic variability exists because traits of parents are not always perfectly passed to daughters. The reasons those traits varied, the sources for that variability, were unknown. It is "ok" to have certain mechanisms unknown in the theory, so long as what they contrive to produce (that is essential to your theory) is observed. Variation in descendent populations can be observed without knowing how it occurred. Likewise total potential variability can be observed to increase over time without knowing for certain that duplication events followed by other mutations were the only source.

 

[Raging Atheist]

..... uh..... what he said....

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The fact that I can think of none does not mean none exist. The fact that we have yet to observe another mechanism for adding potential for diversity as well as diversity itself does not mean that there are none.

Right here is the ultimate faith statement. "This must occur for evolution to happen". This is where believing without seeing fits. You assume their must be a method that we don't know yet. But the fact it, its just....plain....assumption.