Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Gentle Lamb]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory? What is it about the scientific explanations that you've been given that leaves you wanting a better explanation? Are you still in search of more science to back up these explanations or have you given up and left your curiosity unsatisfied on these topics?

 

[lesliedellow]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory? What is it about the scientific explanations that you've been given that leaves you wanting a better explanation? Are you still in search of more science to back up these explanations or have you given up and left your curiosity unsatisfied on these topics?

If somebody on an alien planet was having the evolution of life on Earth explained to him for the first time, he might imagine that there was a single cell organism A. Then the environment changed, and natural selection produced single cell organism B, which in turn evolved into single cell organism C, and so on.

What he would have no reason at all to postulate is the emergence of fabulously complex organisms such as us, because it is by no means clear that natural selection implies that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If somebody on an alien planet was having the evolution of life on Earth explained to him for the first time, ... he would have no reason at all to postulate is the emergence of fabulously complex organisms like us, because it is by no means clear that natural selection implies that.

I can't speak for hypothetical aliens - you seem to know them better than I; it might not be intuitively obvious from a superficial explanation - it's a simple principle with profound implications over geological time, but I expect that if he had access to the available evidence, a little study should convince him that it's possible, and it happened. Alternatively, a technologically competent alien might run a simple computer simulation and discover the power of replication with heritable variation and selection.

 

[lesliedellow]

I can't speak for hypothetical aliens - you seem to know them better than I; it might not be intuitively obvious from a superficial explanation - it's a simple principle with profound implications over geological time, but I expect that if he had access to the available evidence, a little study should convince him that it's possible, and it happened. Alternatively, a technologically competent alien might run a simple computer simulation and discover the power of replication with heritable variation and selection.

Available evidence might convince him that something like evolution must have happened, but it need not, and probably would not, convince him that we had a sufficient explanation for that fact.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I really can't what your hypothetical alien might or might not be convinced of. My only gauge is that the vast majority of Earthlings who know the subject in detail, or work in the fields I mentioned, are convinced by the evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

I really can't what your hypothetical alien might or might not be convinced of. My only gauge is that the vast majority of Earthlings who know the subject in detail, or work in the fields I mentioned, are convinced by the evidence.

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a difference between believing that something happened, and believing that that something has been sufficiently accounted for.

 

[SkyWriting]

If somebody on an alien planet was having the evolution of life on Earth explained to him for the first time, he might imagine that there was a single cell organism A. Then the environment changed, and natural selection produced single cell organism B, which in turn evolved into single cell organism C, and so on.

Most likely it would also know the task to be insurmountable.
Non-living matter sees no benefit from life.

 

[lesliedellow]

Most likely it would also know the task to be insurmountable.
Non-living matter sees no benefit from life.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to account for the origin of life.

 

[SkyWriting]

The theory of evolution does not attempt to account for the origin of life.

I've never seen a version that tried to ignore origins.
When you describe yourself, do you ignore your origins?

Does the "theory of you" skip all that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've never seen a version that tried to ignore origins.
When you describe yourself, do you ignore your origins?

Does the "theory of you" skip all that?

Red herring. The TOE describes how life evolves, not how it originated.

The science dealing with the origin of life is abiogenesis; there is, as yet, no theory of abiogenesis, although there are numerous hypotheses under development and evaluation.

 

[SkyWriting]

The TOE describes how life evolves, not how it originated.

The two are never separated. In fact, abiogenesis is taught as a subtopic of the ToE.

The only people who wish to remain blindfolded insist the topics are separated. They are not.

So how do you explain the existence of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05
http://www.astrobio.net/

?

 

[lesliedellow]

The two are never separated. In fact, abiogenesis is taught as a subtopic of the ToE.

The only people who wish to remain blindfolded insist the topics are separated. They are not.

No it isn't.

So how do you explain the existence of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05
http://www.astrobio.net/
?

I explain it by saying that people are curious to know how life arose on Earth, and also how it might have originated in the wider universe. Nothing to do with Evolution, of course, which is concerned solely with the evolution of the different species.

To describe abiogenesis as a sub topic of Evolution is like describing the physics of sound as a subtopic of musicology.

 

[davedajobauk]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory? What is it about the scientific explanations that you've been given that leaves you wanting a better explanation? Are you still in search of more science to back up these explanations or have you given up and left your curiosity unsatisfied on these topics?

We could imply that evolution provided the means (from early days) to pick up and utilize tools
that different cells, might JOIN FORCES to better cope with environmental changes and, to seek
to become a better survivor
"There is strength in numbers" ... 'Flocking-instinct', 'herding syndrome'
all in all, becoming better able to survive as a 'crowd' (because of that crowd) that, more-complex crowd

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The two are never separated. In fact, abiogenesis is taught as a subtopic of the ToE.

The only people who wish to remain blindfolded insist the topics are separated. They are not.

So how do you explain the existence of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05
http://www.astrobio.net/

?

As that first wiki link says (first line): "Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe: extraterrestrial life and life on Earth."

Notice how they separate 'origin' from 'evolution' in that definition.

As for the existence of the web sites - that's the internet for you... If you mean how do I explain the existence of Astrobiology, the wiki quote describes what it's about, and the reason people want to study that stuff is curiosity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We could imply that evolution provided the means (from early days) to pick up and utilize tools
that different cells, might JOIN FORCES to better cope with environmental changes and, to seek
to become a better survivor
"There is strength in numbers" ... 'Flocking-instinct', 'herding syndrome'
all in all, becoming better able to survive as a 'crowd' (because of that crowd) that, more-complex crowd

The TOE doesn't take such a purposeful or intentional stance; initially cells didn't stick together from any innate instinct or recognition of strength in numbers, but by chance genetic changes to the cell wall components that made them more likely to stick together than separate. In places where this clustering was advantageous, cells with these modifications survived better than those without, and a clustering population would develop. In places where it wasn't advantageous, they'd die out, leaving just the single cell version.

It's been observed in the lab, where by manipulating the environment they grow in, populations of yeast cells that clump together have been bred from cells that didn't clump together. It's not yet clear whether this is a completely new trait for this particular yeast, or a reactivation of a distant ancestral trait.

 

[davedajobauk]

"clumping" yes, those that 'stick together' survive those that do not

Herding, flocking, clumping .... call it, whatever you wish

Adoption, of a 'useful trait' (chromosome / gene)
meant; so much to that single cell and subsequently those cells that also inherited that 'useful trait'
On the other hand, those that adopted less-useful traits / markers, simply did not survive

As you say: "In places where it wasn't advantageous, they'd die out, leaving just the single cell version."
to join (herd, clump, flock) with other cells and so, 'evolve' into more complex organisms

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As you say: "In places where it wasn't advantageous, they'd die out, leaving just the single cell version."
to join (herd, clump, flock) with other cells and so, 'evolve' into more complex organisms

Not necessarily; multicellular species are the exception rather than the rule. There are vastly more single-cell species than multicellular species today.

 

[davedajobauk]

But, they are not sentient

They are not, like fish, the animals, the birds
How do they 'evolve' (can they evolve) and what, might they evolve to become ~as single cell species

 

[whois]

Red herring. The TOE describes how life evolves, not how it originated.

The science dealing with the origin of life is abiogenesis; there is, as yet, no theory of abiogenesis, although there are numerous hypotheses under development and evaluation.

it amazes me how evolutionists applies "evolve" to all sorts of phenomena, computers, airplanes, cars.
never mind these processes involved intelligent intervention.
but yet when it comes to molecules evolving into life, they are loathe to mention the word evolve.
maybe the second part of your quote explains why that is.

 

[morse86]

it amazes me how evolutionists applies "evolve" to all sorts of phenomena, computers, airplanes, cars.
never mind these processes involved intelligent intervention.
but yet when it comes to molecules evolving into life, they are loathe to mention the word evolve.
maybe the second part of your quote explains why that is.

Forget about that. Evolutionists have bigger problems......like explaining origin (they try to evade this).

Every evolutionist must answer where we came from. Eventually you get down to everything coming from nothing. They even have mathematics equations about everything coming from nothing. The pseudo scientists behind this are lunatics.

When mathematics disconnect from reality/observation science, it is lunacy. e=MC^2 is one of the biggest useless hoaxes around.