"faith" in science

Neo · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by unworthyone

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.

It's an assumption based on reason and logic, not on faith alone.

Jerry Smith · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by unworthyone

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.

You misunderstand on TWO points. The first is that we must know the underlying mechanism in order to observe its effect. We have ample evidence that common descent DID happen. Even without knowing for sure that the particular mechanism we have identified EVEN COULD HAPPEN, we know that some mechanism must exist. We have however identified a mechanism that can happen, so we have that much MORE certainty of our theory. Our theory does require the existence of such a mechanism: the finding of it is further evidence in favor of our theory.

Creationists who do not wish to acknowledge the fact of evolution, and who cannot cope with the data that show that it happened, argue that it could not have happened ("because mutation cannot increase information"). We don't HAVE to answer this. Even if it is true that mutation cannot increase information, and that information must increase for evolution to occur, then, in light of the evidence that evolution did occur, we have only proved that something other than mutation increased information.

The second misunderstanding is the idea that there is an argument even if the first was not specious. Since information remains ill-defined, but by any definition of it that could relate to evolution, we DO have knowledge of a means by which mutation can increase it, we need not postulate some other mechanism apart from mutation. That is all the better for the theory, because at least one mechanism is known for producing the necessary potential for and actual variability that natural selection can act on to produce evolution. The creationist argument is specious to begin with, but answered in spite of its speciousness - with hats off to a series of mutations of types that have been observed to occur.

unworthyone · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by Neo
It's an assumption based on reason and logic, not on faith alone.

Ok. Cool.

Jerry Smith · Jul 5, 2002

In short, we would be justified in "assuming" that a mechanism exists that increases information in the genome even without knowledge of it. That would still be assumption and not theory. Nevertheless, our theory is not one of mutations, it is a theory of evolution. That requires no assumptions. It is based on the evidence. We don't accept evolution because the mutations exist, we postulate the mutations because we have evidence that evolution exists. Of course, we also have direct evidence of mutations that fit the bill for evolution, so we need assume neither.

unworthyone · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Even if it is true that mutation cannot increase information, and that information must increase for evolution to occur, then, in light of the evidence that evolution did occur, we have only proved that something other than mutation increased information.

What other then mutations or whatever can increase information to a DNA strand? Please speak more simple for my childish mind. LOL!

Jerry Smith · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by unworthyone

What other then mutations or whatever can increase information to a DNA strand ?Please speak more simple for my childish mind. LOL!

Heck, I don't know. Perhaps nothing. We know mutations can do it, so we don't know for sure that anything else does. On the other hand, if we had proven that mutations could not do it, then we would have to conclude (given the evidence that evolution occurred, and given the somewhat shaky premise that information must have increased for that to happen) that some other mechanism did exist.

In light of the fact that mutation provides all that is needed, it may well be that no other mechanism does exist.

How would we find out?

unworthyone · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Heck, I don't know. Perhaps nothing. We know mutations can do it, so we don't know for sure that anything else does. On the other hand, if we had proven that mutations could not do it, then we would have to conclude (given the evidence that evolution occurred, and given the somewhat shaky premise that information must have increased for that to happen) that some other mechanism did exist

And you think that finding supposed contradictory information would destroy the entire theory?

It does not take much of a rationalization to void anything.

unworthyone · Jul 5, 2002

Evolution is all about spontaneity. So all your supposed "contradictories" would find its way into support for the theory.

"We have now found that blah blah blah can change spontaneously".

Evolution will still be believed and supported.

AtheistArchon · Jul 5, 2002

And you think that finding supposed contradictory information would destroy the entire theory?

It does not take much of a rationalization to void anything.

- Evolution is quite easily falsifiable.  One human skeleton found naturally in the primordeal layer, for example, blows it right away.    Of course, that would also blow away much more than just evolutionary theory.

unworthyone · Jul 6, 2002

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Evolution is quite easily falsifiable.  One human skeleton found naturally in the primordeal layer, for example, blows it right away.    Of course, that would also blow away much more than just evolutionary theory.

Nah. Somebody would make an excuse for it. Like....He must have crawled down there and an earthquake must have trapped him. Chances are he died of suffocation.

WinAce · Jul 6, 2002

Nah. Somebody would make an excuse for it. Like....He must have crawled down there and an earthquake must have trapped him. Chances are he died of suffocation.

Scientists would indeed not take such a revolutionary piece of evidence lightly. There are a few hypotheses that could account for a fossil human in precambrian strata, but you need to formulate a testable prediction to bear one out. If none of them worked, however, it would tear the theory of evolution asunder.

If, for example, the fossil is that of a modern human with a Superbowl ring, we can safely conclude it was somehow planted there by a rogue geologic process (or people) or the guy time-travelled back and was fossilized.

... Actually, that's about it. Finding such a fossil that wasn't a hoax would most likely kill the theory of common descent as a viable explanation right there. The fact that none have been found, EVER, speaks volumes on its correctness.

Jerry Smith · Jul 6, 2002

Originally posted by unworthyone

And you think that finding supposed contradictory information would destroy the entire theory?

No, I know that finding certain ACTUAL contradictory information would destroy the entire theory. On the other hand, certain ACTUAL contradictory information would only destroy parts of the theory (for instance if some whiz managed to prove that evolution had brought about more diversity than could be accounted for by natural selection and mutation alone. Then we would have to find an alternative explanation for how evolution works, or at least amend our explanation.) On the other hand certain actual contradictory information, if found, would bring down the whole composite theory and leave us where we were 150 years ago.

It does not take much of a rationalization to void anything.

If seeming contradictory data were found, it would have to be examined. Only if it could be explained adequately would it not be considered a falsification. In our earlier discussion I listed some contradictory data that, if found, could not be explained in such a way that evolution would be left intact. Furthermore, evolution has already been subject to falsification by much bigger and stronger data than that, if it had been found. When we found ourselves able to look inside the nucleus of a cell a couple of decades ago, we could have found data that destroyed evolution. Instead we found data that supported it.

Jerry Smith · Jul 6, 2002

Originally posted by unworthyone
Evolution is all about spontaneity. So all your supposed "contradictories" would find its way into support for the theory.

"We have now found that blah blah blah can change spontaneously".

1) Spontanaeity has almost nothing to do with evolution, and vice versa.

2) A scientist cannot make a statement about what "we have now found" unless we have really found it. That could be the concluding statement in a paper with research that did find that something can spontaneously change, but it cannot just be pulled out of someone's bottom.

Evolution will still be believed and supported.

Because of, not in spite of, the evidence.

AV1611VET · Oct 12, 2011

Hi, stu --

stu said:
I have heard many a christain say that science is not totally free of faith...

It isn't.

In fact, in some areas it requires more faith.

Take abiogenesis -- anyone who believes that abiogenesis occurred is believing that life came from non-life, whereas in creationism, life comes from life.

Which is easier to believe?

Jazer · Oct 12, 2011

WinAce said:
... Actually, that's about it. Finding such a fossil that wasn't a hoax would most likely kill the theory of common descent as a viable explanation right there. The fact that none have been found, EVER, speaks volumes on its correctness.

Then you have to come up with another theory to explain the DNA.

Nick665 · Oct 12, 2011

AV1611VET said:
life comes from life

Why ? Why does life come from life ?

AV1611VET · Oct 13, 2011

Nick665 said:
Why ? Why does life come from life ?

What does 'why' have to do with it?

Nick665 · Oct 13, 2011

You implied that "life comes life" is easier to believe than "life comes from non-life" . Should I take it that "life comes from life" makes more sense to you than "life comes from non-life" ?

Nick665 · Oct 14, 2011

Seeing that you didnt answer , I'll explain myself a little further. I know that "life came from life" makes more sense to you , because the statement is illogical. "B came from B" See what I did there? And you would probably say that life came from life because we know that life comes from life.

On the other hand I have no problem with either "B came from C" or "C came from B" (life came from non-life, respectively non-life came from life) because it does make sense . And from an evidence point of view , you assert that life was already present. Needless to say you would need to present some evidence of that. Cause there's lots of evidence that non-life was present.

"faith" in science

the one

Fish out of water

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Fish out of water

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Fish out of water

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Be alert. We need more lerts.

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Just an old legend...

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Jazer

Guest

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency