Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Colter]

How did science determine which direction they were travelling?

It was actually out of the region know as Afghanistan, but keep that quiet, science hasn't discovered that yet.

"Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling." UB​

 

[paulm50]

How did science determine which direction they were travelling?

They were following the food. This eventually led them to travel all around the world.

How did science determine this? By examining the human remains. There are more following the trails herds left. Man's migration out of africa. All this still happens today with some tribes, we now call them Nomads. Following their herds, in the times of hunter gatherers they were following prey and food they could gather.

Homo Erectus.

Homo Sapiens

But don't tell the fundamentalist, they think it all started in a garden and with farmers. Maybe Adam and Eve were representatives of our Hunter Gatherer past, 500,000 years, or close to, came two types of farmers the herder and the planter, represented by Cain and Abel. Nothing to do with god, just the evolution of Man.

The problem Colter has is the Mountains of visible evidence v the writings of a backward tribe. Even in it's own time and area.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They were following the food. This eventually led them to travel all around the world.

How did science determine this? By examining the human remains. There are more following the trails herds left. Man's migration out of africa. All this still happens today with some tribes, we now call them Nomads. Following their herds, in the times of hunter gatherers they were following prey and food they could gather.

Homo Erectus.

Homo Sapiens

But don't tell the fundamentalist, they think it all started in a garden and with farmers. Maybe Adam and Eve were representatives of our Hunter Gatherer past, 500,000 years, or close to, came two types of farmers the herder and the planter, represented by Cain and Abel. Nothing to do with god, just the evolution of Man.

The problem Colter has is the Mountains of visible evidence v the writings of a backward tribe. Even in it's own time and area.

Fundamentalists probably believe that this travel took place during the time of Nimrod and the tower of Babel, a few generations after the flood. Man also travels for reasons other than the search for food.

 

[paulm50]

Fundamentalists probably believe that this travel took place during the time of Nimrod and the tower of Babel, a few generations after the flood. Man also travels for reasons other than the search for food.

The proof of this is in the remains they left behind. Bones and tools, also DNA. As for Nimrod and the tower of Babel. They came 10,000s of years later. Whether Adam and Eve are vague reminders representing Hunter Gatherers, Cain and Abel represent the two types of farmers that started to appear in the Middle East around 10,000 BC. We can only wonder. Whether they actually knew that was what they represented, is speculation. What isn't is the mass of proof.

 

[pshun2404]

The proof of this is in the remains they left behind. Bones and tools, also DNA. As for Nimrod and the tower of Babel. They came 10,000s of years later. Whether Adam and Eve are vague reminders representing Hunter Gatherers, Cain and Abel represent the two types of farmers that started to appear in the Middle East around 10,000 BC. We can only wonder. Whether they actually knew that was what they represented, is speculation. What isn't is the mass of proof.

true...just look at the tools man left behind (see their footprints) in the Olduvai gorge after feasting on that young australopithicene...mmm! Yummy....

 

[paulm50]

true...just look at the tools man left behind (see their footprints) in the Olduvai gorge after feasting on that young australopithicene...mmm! Yummy....

A drawing based on the remains found.

Probably a bit of imagination went in here.

Australopithecine

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So, when does not actually know evolution to be a fact, rather than a posit?

 

[paulm50]

So, when does not actually know evolution to be a fact, rather than a posit?

When one looks at the evidence around and inside us. The coccyx, appendix, dead scent glands, our gills, etc. Proof of humans evolving from fish, to mammals, to monkeys to Humans. The evidence is all there.

Science, the ability to get it wrong, admit it, correct and go forward.
Religion never ever accept mistakes, never admit it, never correct and never go forward.

 

[stevevw]

When one looks at the evidence around and inside us. The coccyx, appendix, dead scent glands, our gills, etc. Proof of humans evolving from fish, to mammals, to monkeys to Humans. The evidence is all there.

Science, the ability to get it wrong, admit it, correct and go forward.
Religion never ever accept mistakes, never admit it, never correct and never go forward.

Actually new research shows that the appendix is a needed part of us. It is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria.
Just because we dont know what a body part is for doesn't mean it is useless or a vestigial organ. They are finding the use of other body parts once thought useless and vestigial.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html

 

[paulm50]

Actually new research shows that the appendix is a needed part of us. It is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria.
Just because we dont know what a body part is for doesn't mean it is useless or a vestigial organ. They are finding the use of other body parts once thought useless and vestigial.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html

The beauty of science is it's prepared to say it got it wrong and carry on. And people can twist it.

The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.

 

[stevevw]

The beauty of science is it's prepared to say it got it wrong and carry on. And people can twist it.

The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.

Yes that correct but the point is some say that body parts like the appendix are totally vestigial which proves evolution in that its a useless bit that is left over from an evolving body. But now we are finding that they are not useless and are an important part of our system. It wasn't all about science. Some jumped to this conclusion because it helped prove evolution. The same as when some said that humans had gills and a tail when developing as a fetus. Science itself is about verifying things. But its the people behind it that can manipulate the results. They can claim to be using science but it will all depend on what they choose to present and the way they choose to represent it.

 

[paulm50]

Yes that correct but the point is some say that body parts like the appendix are totally vestigial which proves evolution in that its a useless bit that is left over from an evolving body. But now we are finding that they are not useless and are an important part of our system. It wasn't all about science. Some jumped to this conclusion because it helped prove evolution. The same as when some said that humans had gills and a tail when developing as a fetus. Science itself is about verifying things. But its the people behind it that can manipulate the results. They can claim to be using science but it will all depend on what they choose to present and the way they choose to represent it.

They can claim, the problem is other scientist have a habit of catching them out. And that's what science is based on a lot of the time. Taking previous evidence and disproving it, Research Lucy, Ardi and walking upright. Aslo Neanderthal DNA in Humans.

Taking the two camps, Natural Selection v Intelligent Design. One has a very good record of finding out how it works, the other goes back to the same old theory no matter how many times it's proven as wrong.

 

[pshun2404]

A drawing based on the remains found.

Probably a bit of imagination went in here.

Australopithecine

true they always require contrived artistic fiction so that the propaganda can be successfully psychologically imprinted.

 

[paulm50]

true they always require contrived artistic fiction so that the propaganda can be successfully psychologically imprinted.

Programs like Walking with Dinosaurs, or Mammals, or Man. Can always be backed up by a wealth of physical evidence, that checked, cross checked and as new finds are found can be edited. Like Lucy was when Ardi was discovered.

The biblical drawings are all from the imagination of the artists or the people who pay them. This cemented the belief that the bible was undeniably right. Back in the day. Now we have advanced science.

 

[stevevw]

They can claim, the problem is other scientist have a habit of catching them out. And that's what science is based on a lot of the time. Taking previous evidence and disproving it, Research Lucy, Ardi and walking upright. Aslo Neanderthal DNA in Humans.

Taking the two camps, Natural Selection v Intelligent Design. One has a very good record of finding out how it works, the other goes back to the same old theory no matter how many times it's proven as wrong.

It depends how you look at it. Scientists claim they work free of bias and assumptions but there is a history of them presenting things the way they believe it should be or the way they see things. If there is any room for doubt rather than be open to considering all aspects they tend to fall on the side of what they already believe and what has already been promoted. So it becomes circular reasoning where the evidence is dictated by what has already been decided and what has already been decided is directing where things are going.

A good example is the many cases where discoveries of fossils that have been assessed wrongly. If there is little evidence for where it should fit in to the records it is almost always placed so that it continues to build the picture that has already been made for evolution. This is seen with the different shaped bones such as ape skulls for example being made into new species rather than possible variations of the same species. There is no way to determine where these fossils really fit but scientists decide to fall on the side of making them new species so that it builds the transitions for their theory.

So even though scientists claim they are working in the name of truth this is just words and not done in practice. Of course there are many good scientists who do good work but overall the general consensus is what rules and anyone who steps outside this is looked upon as rocking the boat. It becomes harder to present anything that is not in agreement with what is already decided even if some of this is not even validated.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

 

[paulm50]

It depends how you look at it. Scientists claim they work free of bias and assumptions but there is a history of them presenting things the way they believe it should be or the way they see things. If there is any room for doubt rather than be open to considering all aspects they tend to fall on the side of what they already believe and what has already been promoted. So it becomes circular reasoning where the evidence is dictated by what has already been decided and what has already been decided is directing where things are going.

And science catches them out. And you see this as a bad thing?
Whereas the bible and devout are always being caught out for presenting things the way they believe it should be or the way they see things. They have no rom for doubt, even when faced with undeniable proof. So circular reasoning is their only answer.

A good example is the many cases where discoveries of fossils that have been assessed wrongly. If there is little evidence for where it should fit in to the records it is almost always placed so that it continues to build the picture that has already been made for evolution. This is seen with the different shaped bones such as ape skulls for example being made into new species rather than possible variations of the same species. There is no way to determine where these fossils really fit but scientists decide to fall on the side of making them new species so that it builds the transitions for their theory.

Yes, and why do you know they got it wrong? That's the beauty of science. They're always learning more, going back and correcting mistakes. You talk as if it's all mistakes. However you do agree the fossils exist. When they discover one that's different from others, what's your explanation for it being different?

So even though scientists claim they are working in the name of truth this is just words and not done in practice. Of course there are many good scientists who do good work but overall the general consensus is what rules and anyone who steps outside this is looked upon as rocking the boat. It becomes harder to present anything that is not in agreement with what is already decided even if some of this is not even validated.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

When you come up with better proof, tell the world. And please be sure it stands up to the same level of scrutiny you subject science to.

 

[stevevw]

And science catches them out. And you see this as a bad thing?
Whereas the bible and devout are always being caught out for presenting things the way they believe it should be or the way they see things. They have no room for doubt, even when faced with undeniable proof. So circular reasoning is their only answer.

Yes, and why do you know they got it wrong? That's the beauty of science. They're always learning more, going back and correcting mistakes. You talk as if it's all mistakes. However you do agree the fossils exist. When they discover one that's different from others, what's your explanation for it being different?

Ideally you would like to think that would be the case with science. But unfortunately there are humans behind science who are subject to a host of other motivations and influences that can divert their good intentions and ideals. Whether its religious people or scientists its all the same. They are human beings who can misrepresent things. Its not the religion itself or the science but the people behind it.

Scientists dont always catch others out and there is an inherent tendency to allow certain things to slip. Its the system and its like governments who know that some injustice or misrepresentation is being made but dont want to know about it because it will force them to have to deal with situations that may upset people or institutions that hold sway over them. Its like a club that only allows a certain way of thinking and anything different is frowned upon. There is a certain element of faith in what evolutionists believe as well as some things are based on assumption.
http://theconversation.com/scientists-falter-as-much-as-bankers-in-pursuit-of-answers-21136
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

 

[pshun2404]

Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud and only upon pressure from the non-committee criticisms were papers and articles retracted. In these cases it is usually other more honest scientists who bust these charlatans but the issue for me is the 5 or 6 not caught or missed for the every one that gets caught....

In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that “Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.”

So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary toconvince, shape, and engineer, public and professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us (we believe it is sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal).

In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, who informs us that “With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud... although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”

So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. He states these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?

In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis.

"The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).” So in effect, “No scientist publishes all the raw data…Inappropriately done (usually according to someone else's assessment), this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data.”

Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise that "it is sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals".

Paul

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud and only upon pressure from the non-committee criticisms were papers and articles retracted. In these cases it is usually other more honest scientists who bust these charlatans but the issue for me is the 5 or 6 not caught or missed for the every one that gets caught....

In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that “Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.”

So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary toconvince, shape, and engineer, public and professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us (we believe it is sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal).

In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, who informs us that “With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud... although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”

So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. He states these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?

In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis.

"The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).” So in effect, “No scientist publishes all the raw data…Inappropriately done (usually according to someone else's assessment), this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data.”

Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise that "it is sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals".

Paul

Well said! Well said indeed! Jolly good!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All it would take for a reasonable person to be persuaded of purposeful, intelligent, yes elegant, design, would be to peruse "Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body".