How certain is 'science'

[notto]

No, we can't. You are claiming that your belief about a few chapters in Genesis is God's truth. We do not have consensus on that, so we do not have consensus on the relationship of science to God's truth.

Excellent point.

 

[TheBear]

I prestented tangible and utilized, modern day results of applied evolutionary science.....

Are you aware that evolutionary biology is the basis for many agricultural improvements? Did you know that evolutionary principles were used to produce some of our best vaccines? Will you be keeping up with all the biotechnology and pharmaceutical advancements based on evolutionary biology?

And I get this for a reply....

Darwin himself acknowledge the big leap of faith required to extrapolate from the small variations he saw within species to the notion that we evolved from a single celled animal.

Amazing...

 

[Micaiah]

Why amazing? You gave evidence which you apparently find convincing. I don't, and I pointed out why.

 

[TheBear]

Why amazing? You gave evidence which you apparently find convincing. I don't, and I pointed out why.

Amazing because you still don't see the difference between speculation and tangible results.

 

[Micaiah]

I think you are being very dogmatic about something that is far from certain. Show me how genetic change we witness today proves 'slime to scientist' evolution.

 

[notto]

I think you are being very dogmatic about something that is far from certain. Show me how genetic change we witness today proves 'slime to scientist' evolution.

Through the independent nested hierarchy of the fossil record and DNA evidence along with the pattern of ERV insertions in the human DNA.

It doesn't 'prove' evolution, but evolution explains why we see these things and other lines of evidence we have. Theories are seldom 'proven', only supported and they are accepted when they are consistent with evidence and not falsified.

Evolution is tenatively accepted as true and new evidence is weighed against it. It will never be proven, but no scientific theory is every truely proven.

The genetic change we see today does show us that the proposed mechanism for evolution and diversity is valid and that the changes proposed can be explained using the proposed mechanism. We know the mechanism can cause speciation and that natural selection affects diversity of populations. We can see that life in the past was very different than life today and the theory of evolution attempts to explain this fact by applying know mechanisms and explaining the evidence as to why this is so.

Life in the past was different than life today - this is a fact.
Life in the past changed slowly over time - this is a fact.
Evolution is the theory that explains how this can be using observed mechanisms. Evolution is consistent with the evidence we find.

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks Notto. It sounds to me like you have some understanding of some of the theories regarding genetic change.

Through the independent nested hierarchy of the fossil record and DNA evidence along with the pattern of ERV insertions in the human DNA.

This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist. I'd need to accept your judgement by faith. Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.

Maybe you could make an attempt to put the explanation in more understandable terms.

I'm interested to hear from Bear. He has mentioned some examples in agriculture that prove slime to scientist evolution beyond a shadow of doubt. I have a passing interest in agriculture. As a teenager I worked on a farm for several years before embarking on studies. Thanks Bear. Lets hear it in your own words.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Thanks Notto. It sounds to me like you have some understanding of some of the theories regarding genetic change.

This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist.

Not at all. You could choose to rely on your own expertise as a scientist as you check his data.

I'd need to accept your judgement by faith.

Or you could have the sum total of all his data and findings dropped on your desk, look at his results for yourself, and come to the conclusion that his judgement is the correct one.

No faith required.

Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.

I think that process is called "learning." Doesn't it falsify your initial claim? If scientists are regularly changing their minds, or more accurately, regularly changing each other's minds, doesn't that mean they're not trusting each other on faith alone?

Maybe you could make an attempt to put the explanation in more understandable terms.

I'm sure if he could explain it with a puppet show, he would.

I'm interested to hear from Bear. He has mentioned some examples in agriculture that prove slime to scientist evolution beyond a shadow of doubt.

You had me going...up until this point, I thought you seriously wanted to learn something.

I have a passing interest in agriculture. As a teenager I worked on a farm for several years before embarking on studies. Thanks Bear. Lets hear it in your own words.

Do your best, Bear...

 

[notto]

This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist. I'd need to accept your judgement by faith. Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.

You should mention that the next time you go to the doctor. Can you point out how scientists are 'regularly' changing their minds about what happened and why it happened? As I mentioned, theories change in light of evidence. Unfortunately for YEC's, the evidence has already falsified their theories, once done, that's it. Of course scientists 'change their minds'. That is how science works and is its strength. New evidence will always point in new directions. What won't happen is that old theories that have already been falsified will come back.

Do you trust any science?

 

[Crusadar]

notto: Do you trust any science?

Operational science, of course, - origin science (i.e. mud to man evolution) a firm no. You do realize that there is a difference between knowing how something works and how it originated don't you.

 

[notto]

notto: Do you trust any science?

Operational science, of course, - origin science (i.e. mud to man evolution) a firm no. You do realize that there is a difference between knowing how something works and how it originated don't you.

How do you know that operational science and our observations in it are not influenced by the supernatural and that they could not simply change tommorrow?

Since 'origin' science is based on the observations of operational science (constant radioactive decay, constant erosion, constent genetic influences and mutation), why can't we base conclusions of of what we observe and assume that it would have been observed that way in the past? If we assume that we will observe the same phenomena we test today tommorrow, why not yesterday or 1,000, 10,000, or a million years ago?

Your assumptions on trusting operational science are no different than the assumptions for 'origins' science. Things happened in the past much like they happen today (or tommorrow).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Through the independent nested hierarchy of the fossil record and DNA evidence along with the pattern of ERV insertions in the human DNA.

This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist. I'd need to accept your judgement by faith. Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.

it begins with self-education.
start at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/index.html

end with the booK:

Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata
human evolution explanation at its best
This is simply the best book i've found on human evolution. The subtitle is "The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent", don't be put off if you don't have a degree in biochemistry. Unlike most other technical and scientifically sophisticated books, in this one, the author holds your hand. He does it very well, introducing binominal and poisson distribution analysis both in the text and in appendices, for example. You are aware of his careful setting up the pieces that you need in order to understand the take home message of each chapter, and you are grateful, even if you already know the material, for the 'nice' way he does it. I finished the book wishing he would rewrite many biology and engineering textbooks i have been subjected to over the years by authors who assumed if you didn't know exactly what you were reading, then you shouldn't have bought and tried to read his book in the first place. For this characteristic alone the book is deeply and joyfully to be praised.

that will get you to the place you can read and judge a lot about the biology .

 

[Micaiah]

Let's let Notto answer for himself. I'd like him to demonstrate his undertanding with an explanation in his own plain and simple words. Not a cut and paste or link. As one who is not an expert in this field, I'd appreciate the explanation.

Remember this is something that he is certain about. I assume he has a solid argument on which he bases his belief about origins.

In addition, Notto could tell us the branch of science in which he is qualified. I wasn't aware that he was an expert in genetics. From what I can gather, his statements relate to research that is in its infancy.

Mr Bear, when you are ready, I await your explanation about the farm animals. That is probably something I can relate to a little easier.

 

[Crusadar]

notto said: Your assumptions on trusting operational science are no different than the assumptions for 'origins' science.

Hardly, have you ever seen anyone design a plane or build a spacecraft on the basis of evolutionary science? I would hope not. I am willing to bet that no engineer works on the evolutionary formula of no design – and if he does he would pretty much be unemployed!

Things happened in the past much like they happen today (or tommorrow).

Based on the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism I suppose. That’s nothing new, in fact would you believe scripture even predicted this in 2 Peters 3:3-4?

Of course without the billions of years, evolution would be very silly wouldn’t it? After all if a frog changes into a prince very quickly it is a fairy tale, but if it changes over a long period of time then it’s modern science! Silly evolutionists, myths are for kids!

 

[notto]

Let's let Notto answer for himself. I'd like him to demonstrate his undertanding with an explanation in his own plain and simple words. Not a cut and paste or link. As one who is not an expert in this field, I'd appreciate the explanation.

Remember this is something that he is certain about. I assume he has a solid argument on which he bases his belief about origins.

In addition, Notto could tell us the branch of science in which he is qualified. I wasn't aware that he was an expert in genetics. From what I can gather, his statements relate to research that is in its infancy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

It begins with self-education. There are great resources on line to read about the independent lines of evidence that lead us to the conclusion of common descent. If you are unfamiliar with the mainstream science of the matter, you should read up on it from scientific sources that are peer reviewed and well referenced. You have been given some good links on the subject. Let us know if you have any questions after reading them.

I never claimed to be an expert in genetics. I can read. Have you read about the evidence before commenting on it? I have.

 

[notto]

notto said: Your assumptions on trusting operational science are no different than the assumptions for 'origins' science.

Hardly, have you ever seen anyone design a plane or build a spacecraft on the basis of evolutionary science? I would hope not. I am willing to bet that no engineer works on the evolutionary formula of no design – and if he does he would pretty much be unemployed!

Engineers do work using the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism. If they didn't, they would be pretty much unemployed. If they didn't assume that nature would pretty much do tommorrow what it did today, they wouldn't be able to design, would they.

Things happened in the past much like they happen today (or tommorrow).

Find me anyone who designs a plane or builds a spacecraft that disagrees with the statement or doesn't use this assumption when they are enginering.

 

[Crusadar]

notto said: Engineers do work using the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism.

No they don’t. It is natural laws in the here and now that are taken into consideration, not speculations on whether or not they will change or have ever changed. What I was pointing out was that the design aspect of any machine time and again is demonstrated in the amount of specified information that is applied. This is something that is not derivable from natural laws.

In fact the information applied specifies the purpose – this is seen in all biology. This is what I was after, that natural laws alone produces no plane nor spacecraft and yet evolutionists dare say something which is much more complex as that of a bacterium or a bird are the product of nature alone?

You see notto in the real world where real science operates, the time required to create and design any given purposeful machine from basic raw substances is inversely proportionate to the amount of creativity in the form of information applied. So long periods of time are not necessary when one already knows what it is that one wants to design (and I have no doubt God who is omniscient did know what He wanted).

Simply put, the time required to create or design a machine is flexible, where the time factor decreases as the amount of information increases - where there is little or no information applied there is low tech or no tech.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

notto said: Engineers do work using the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism.

No they don’t. It is natural laws in the here and now that are taken into consideration, not speculations on whether or not they will change or have ever changed. What I was pointing out was that the design aspect of any machine time and again is demonstrated in the amount of specified information that is applied. This is something that is not derivable from natural laws.

In fact the information applied specifies the purpose – this is seen in all biology. This is what I was after, that natural laws alone produces no plane nor spacecraft and yet evolutionists dare say something which is much more complex as that of a bacterium or a bird are the product of nature alone?

You see notto in the real world where real science operates, the time required to create and design any given purposeful machine from basic raw substances is inversely proportionate to the amount of creativity in the form of information applied. So long periods of time are not necessary when one already knows what it is that one wants to design (and I have no doubt God who is omniscient did know what He wanted).

Simply put, the time required to create or design a machine is flexible, where the time factor decreases as the amount of information increases - where there is little or no information applied there is low tech or no tech.

can someone please tell me what this means?
it makes no sense to me.

...

 

[notto]

can someone please tell me what this means?
it makes no sense to me.

...

I think it means that scientists and engineers expect things to happen the same way tommorrow as they did yesterday and the day before. After all, it has proven to be a pretty good assumption.

What do they call that again?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think it means that scientists and engineers expect things to happen the same way tommorrow as they did yesterday and the day before. After all, it has proven to be a pretty good assumption.

What do they call that again?

thanks for the translation, i couldn't make anything sensible out of it.
uniformity of natural causes over time?