why we do not believe secular scientists

[Deamiter]

I know exactly what an inference is because I used to make them with inferential statistics to determine main effects in both psychological and industrial settings. If it did not work we would all be driving GMs and watching the Super Bowl on the latest Zenith.
Using fossils as evidence is doing so by inference, no ifs , ands or buts , not by direct observation like a star.
However it is consistent with my observations that many people that support evolution as a theory do not know much about science. I suppose their confidence is boosted by the fact that many creationists lack common sense.

Okay, but how did you get from your statement "it is pure inference" to "few relations can be made from the fossil to the life that created it"? If you're using inference the way you claim (and I agree, using fossils to conclude behaviors is largely inference) then could you perhaps provide support for the claim that very little can be concluded about dinosaurs based on fossil evidence? You just put the two sentences in the same paragraph and as you didn't provide any other support for the claim and had no other reason to discuss inferences it seemed like you were citing inference as a reason to seriously doubt the conclusions of palaeontologists.

Interestingly enough, the existence of electrons and even more basic subatomic particles are also based heavily on inference. We have never observed a germ making somebody sick but a high correlation between infection and symptoms suggests that germs make us sick. If conclusions based on similarities between the wear patterns on fossils and the wear patterns on living creatures' bones must be strongly questioned because we never saw the original dinosaurs how much less can we trust any other area of science where direct observations are not possible? Isn't this just a red herring designed to throw doubt on our understanding of extinct creatures when the understanding is no less evidenced than many other areas in the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and biology?

I think it's odd that you'd bring up a lack of scientific education among evolutionists since the vast majority of the entire population has a lack of scientific education. Heck, the majority of the creationist population has no formal scientific or even theological training! Even so, the evolutionists posting on this board are very different -- here the majority have a scientific education and it is the minority that pursue science solely as a hobby. We're certainly not all palaeontologists, but there are many more evolutionists here in hard sciences than creationists or even evolutionists NOT trained in science.

Either way, the level of education of evolutionists here or elsewhere has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution itself. I mean, look at all the non-scientists who are fascinated by string theory or hypotheses about multiple-universes! Does their support or rejection of the ideas really have any bearing whatsoever on whether the concepts are well-supported?

 

[daas]

"Proven true?" You're using a colloquial definition of "proven" to mean "evidenced" here but in science, nothing can ever be proven because it is impossible to rule out every possibility with 100% certainty. When talking about science, we should stick to the definition that is used in math.
quote]

Apologies - I'm not ignoring the replies to my post, just been on hols for a couple of days. It seems that this debate has left me behind, and my point has been passed over. Suffice to say, thanks to Deamiter for the clarification of my comments, and I agree that I should have chosen my vocabulary a little more carefully.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

is the 'c' for celsius?

...

One can only think that interantional standards are followed.

 

[gwynedd1]

Okay, but how did you get from your statement "it is pure inference" to "few relations can be made from the fossil to the life that created it"? If you're using inference the way you claim (and I agree, using fossils to conclude behaviors is largely inference)

It is not largely inference. It is pure inference(if I am saying I have more than a bone). Going to the dictionary again...

"the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation ".


A largely inferential context is when I saw someone near the scene of a crime and have supporting circumstantial evidence.

then could you perhaps provide support for the claim that very little can be concluded about dinosaurs based on fossil evidence?

Could you please cite my statement where I said that please. I am sorry , but is it standard in this forum where every statement is parsed to extract the least favorable context in any ambiguity? When this is not possible is it then standard to paraphrase incorrectly as you do here?

By comparison we cannot compare living subjects to their bones in the case of dinosaurs. So relative to mens bones we know less.

You just put the two sentences in the same paragraph and as you didn't provide any other support for the claim and had no other reason to discuss inferences it seemed like you were citing inference as a reason to seriously doubt the conclusions of palaeontologists.

When you make assumptions without evidence that is bound to happen. I do not recall making any statement related to that other than in comparison to your reference to humans which we can observe. This is where the problem is. You are assuming that what we can determine from human bones is a peer science to fossils. In one case we have living references in the other case we do not.
It is loosely related to making hashes in in computer science where a key points to a more extensive dataset. However I cannot build them without the original dataset. In this case it is for retrieval speed.

A free implementation is here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdbm/

After studying bones of carpenters I am sure we could use their bones as hash keys. Looking at a bone if it matches my "inferential index" we can then assume they had wood working tools etc(the extensive data set). The question is, how did we know they are carpenters? Reading the obituary should handle that problem. However in the case of anthropology it is done by inference because in that case we are not working with the population as with the CS performance index. In the case of dinosaurs I will have trouble building my inferential indexing system by comparison to humans.

Interestingly enough, the existence of electrons and even more basic subatomic particles are also based heavily on inference.

I would say less than that. They are names we create for analogs.

We have never observed a germ making somebody sick but a high correlation between infection and symptoms suggests that germs make us sick.

Err, are you sure about that?

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/Internatio...el.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=&artikel=728669

If conclusions based on similarities between the wear patterns on fossils and the wear patterns on living creatures' bones must be strongly questioned because we never saw the original dinosaurs how much less can we trust any other area of science where direct observations are not possible? Isn't this just a red herring designed to throw doubt on our understanding of extinct creatures when the understanding is no less evidenced than many other areas in the hard sciences of physics, chemistry and biology?

No, what I am saying is an accurate rendering of the reality of how basic science is conducted. What you are saying is incorrect.

I think it's odd that you'd bring up a lack of scientific education among evolutionists since the vast majority of the entire population has a lack of scientific education. Heck, the majority of the creationist population has no formal scientific or even theological training! Even so, the evolutionists posting on this board are very different -- here the majority have a scientific education and it is the minority that pursue science solely as a hobby. We're certainly not all palaeontologists, but there are many more evolutionists here in hard sciences than creationists or even evolutionists NOT trained in science.

It has been my personal experience that creationists accurately define scientific methods more accurately. I suppose it is because it has been a useful angle for some of the arguments. Their problem is , as in the case of young Earth types, they deny not only reasonable inferences but ones that are cross referenced with other methods making it a near certainty that they deny.

Either way, the level of education of evolutionists here or elsewhere has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution itself. I mean, look at all the non-scientists who are fascinated by string theory or hypotheses about multiple-universes! Does their support or rejection of the ideas really have any bearing whatsoever on whether the concepts are well-supported?

What good is knowledge when no one knows it? Most of everything I have seen in this forum is argumentative , not declarative. It is the reason why I do not believe in such a thing as pure unbiased science.
Evolution has had serious blows to assumptions like gradualism. It does not have good conceptual models for system evolution where component changes can degrade the system. It does not have good conceptual models of how natural selection works on gradualism since a temporary condition of no advantage will not be selected. For the most part all we see are chimeras now. The fossil record has been a big disappointment. Protein synthesis is still a conundrum.
As I said before , I see evolution has some momentum in some areas but as an admitted empiricist I am one of the more neutral parties in this debate. There are interesting arguments on both sides. If it were not for creationists, how many people would think the moths were "evolution " rather than natural selection?


However I do not trust the likes of these to just stick with the facts:

http://news.com.com/Dodos+film+pecks+holes+in+evolution+debate/2100-11395_3-6040741.html


Do you see facts dominating or a wreckless display of emotion?

 

[gwynedd1]

No offence - but when did psychology become a science. It has been ridiculed for decades, even from within, that it does not apply scientific methodology. It's a mainly subjective "soft" science at best. Often it's just a belief system with surveys and a few freshman stat class numbers thrown in.

Hello KerrMetric,

No offense taken. That is why I tended towards Behaviorism that shows results. Many other "schools" cannot show results when accounting for placebo and regression. If you were a big fan of Lassie, you are seeing behavioral principles on display with good results.

There are other good contributions from others since we are internally conflicted (the mind says do not eat chocolate cake at night but it conflicts with the senses, Psychoanalysis ) .Cognitives also take into account the observer. Evolution does have a lot in common with psychology in difficulties with direct observation.

Behaviorism would predict we would ignore facts that make us feel bad in a forum like this. I could collect some data in the responses and probably identify pain avoidance and pleasure inducing responses to a humiliated opponent. Watch people at the slot machines. I wonder how many know they are one of the most addictive variable-interval schedules.

It's really only in recent times psychology has finally started using more rigourous statistical methods - and most psychology programs still don't teach sophsticated statistical methods despite the reliance of statistics in psychology.

It really used to be a branch of philosophy. We all know what that can turn into aka "snake oil". Psychoanalysis was certainly borrowing from Aurthur Schopenhauer.

Too many questionnaires and not enough empirical science.

Oh I agree, Its bad research. All one gets is people who are willing to lie on a survey. The department stores could use a consultant because they do the same kind of junk science. Look for good evidence like plush carpeting on the casino floor. You know they have good psychology behind it, though the intentions are quite nefarious. Doesn't anyone ask "who pays for this"?

 

[Deamiter]

It is not largely inference. It is pure inference(if I am saying I have more than a bone). Going to the dictionary again...

"the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation ".


A largely inferential context is when I saw someone near the scene of a crime and have supporting circumstantial evidence.

Fair enough, my point was more focused on the ability to make conclusions, not the application of inference.

Could you please cite my statement where I said that please. I am sorry , but is it standard in this forum where every statement is parsed to extract the least favorable context in any ambiguity? When this is not possible is it then standard to paraphrase incorrectly as you do here?
By comparison we cannot compare living subjects to their bones in the case of dinosaurs. So relative to mens bones we know less.

I'm sorry, I try very hard not to paraphrase to twist your words or anything. It's true that we know less than with currently living organisms, but we can still know a whole lot about behavior, diet, eating habits, caring for young etc... The phrase I was referring to was from your post where you had two numbered points:

2. The fossil is a quantum leap in a state of degradation of life. It is metamorphic in scale. There are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it. There are no direct proportions applied to the senses. This is not like viewing a phenomenological event. It is not like hearing an explosion 1/2 mile away verse 2 miles away. It is pure inference to guess at the fossil and what it was.

(bold mine)

After studying bones of carpenters I am sure we could use their bones as hash keys. Looking at a bone if it matches my "inferential index" we can then assume they had wood working tools etc(the extensive data set). The question is, how did we know they are carpenters? Reading the obituary should handle that problem. However in the case of anthropology it is done by inference because in that case we are not working with the population as with the CS performance index. In the case of dinosaurs I will have trouble building my inferential indexing system by comparison to humans.

You might have trouble, but it is certainly not impossible. We know, for example, what types of vegetation existed in different periods and what type of wear patterns consuming this vegetation will cause on teeth. We can observe bite marks in bones that match different dinosaurs' teeth. We can observe wear patterns consistent with sprinting (as with T-Rex) or with quick pivoting (as with Triceratops). We can observe that the T-Rex's skull would balance best tilted down at about 10 degrees which also happens to be the angle at which it would have the widest view of the horizon suggesting that it was a predator, not solely a scavenger as some have suggested.

Yes, we're comparing what we see in fossils to the behaviors and wear patterns we see in living organisms. That the wear patterns are in many cases identical and that many existing organisms have very similar bone structure to dinosaurs strengthens the conclusions. Yes, you can always repeat that we have no living specimen with which to create a hash key, but it would be a mistake to claim that we're only guessing (as you suggested in last sentence of the earlier post cited above).

I would say less than that. They are names we create for analogs.

Err, are you sure about that?

http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/Internatio...el.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=&artikel=728669

Forgive me, I don't understand the bit about electrons (I don't think it's that important so I'll skip it). However you missed my point about germs. We have never observed a germ making us sick. We know bacteria and viruses exist, and we know that they are much more common in sick people than in healthy people, but we have never observed the process of a bacterial invasion of the body causing symptoms.

No, what I am saying is an accurate rendering of the reality of how basic science is conducted. What you are saying is incorrect.

Can I clarify here -- what exactly was incorrect? Was my attempts to characterize your arguments incorrect (as I agree they probably were given your other statements about inference) or is my claim that there is much we can be reasonably sure of (the scientific version of "proof") incorrect. I certainly agree, inference is vital to many areas of science, but as I may have misunderstood your earlier post (that seemed to say that inference is a guess and the little can be concluded through inference) I find it entirely possible that we're arguing the same thing here.

It has been my personal experience that creationists accurately define scientific methods more accurately. I suppose it is because it has been a useful angle for some of the arguments. Their problem is , as in the case of young Earth types, they deny not only reasonable inferences but ones that are cross referenced with other methods making it a near certainty that they deny.

I suppose that makes sense. I think it's more likely that they question everything that they disagree with on a Biblical interpretive basis and they get lucky in your eyes by questioning pure inferences. Of course, I strongly disagree that inferences are somehow lesser and cannot be as well supported as more direct observations. If we see precisely the same wear pattern in Dinosaur teeth as in organisms today with extremely similar teeth is it somehow highly questionable that they ate similar foods?

What good is knowledge when no one knows it? Most of everything I have seen in this forum is argumentative , not declarative. It is the reason why I do not believe in such a thing as pure unbiased science.

Meh, bias could be a problem if scientists weren't constantly competing for funding! The scientist that publishes a new finding especially if they prove another scientist wrong (the more prominent the better) is assured funding for years. It's one case where individuals are each rather biased but their biases are continually attacked and questioned. For example your mention of gradualism:

Evolution has had serious blows to assumptions like gradualism.

How is this a serious blow to evolution? Evolutionists have concluded that gradualism is not by any means the only process by which species change. When a diverse population is suddenly pressed with high selective pressure, the average alleles will change rapidly. I mean, it might be a blow to somebody who claims pure gradualism, but the theory of evolution isn't pinned to gradualism.

Anyway, I'd rather not get into a detailed argument over the merits of different problems you think exist with evolution. I hope after reading this, you'll understand where I got the idea you thought "there are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it." Do forgive me if I misinterpreted this post -- this phrase along with associating inference with guessing made me question your understanding of how well supported pure inference can be.

 

[gwynedd1]

Fair enough, my point was more focused on the ability to make conclusions, not the application of inference.

I'm sorry, I try very hard not to paraphrase to twist your words or anything. It's true that we know less than with currently living organisms, but we can still know a whole lot about behavior, diet, eating habits, caring for young etc... The phrase I was referring to was from your post where you had two numbered points:
(bold mine)
You might have trouble, but it is certainly not impossible. We know, for example, what types of vegetation existed in different periods and what type of wear patterns consuming this vegetation will cause on teeth. We can observe bite marks in bones that match different dinosaurs' teeth. We can observe wear patterns consistent with sprinting (as with T-Rex) or with quick pivoting (as with Triceratops). We can observe that the T-Rex's skull would balance best tilted down at about 10 degrees which also happens to be the angle at which it would have the widest view of the horizon suggesting that it was a predator, not solely a scavenger as some have suggested.

Yes, we're comparing what we see in fossils to the behaviors and wear patterns we see in living organisms. That the wear patterns are in many cases identical and that many existing organisms have very similar bone structure to dinosaurs strengthens the conclusions. Yes, you can always repeat that we have no living specimen with which to create a hash key, but it would be a mistake to claim that we're only guessing (as you suggested in last sentence of the earlier post cited above).
Forgive me, I don't understand the bit about electrons (I don't think it's that important so I'll skip it). However you missed my point about germs. We have never observed a germ making us sick. We know bacteria and viruses exist, and we know that they are much more common in sick people than in healthy people, but we have never observed the process of a bacterial invasion of the body causing symptoms.
Can I clarify here -- what exactly was incorrect? Was my attempts to characterize your arguments incorrect (as I agree they probably were given your other statements about inference) or is my claim that there is much we can be reasonably sure of (the scientific version of "proof") incorrect. I certainly agree, inference is vital to many areas of science, but as I may have misunderstood your earlier post (that seemed to say that inference is a guess and the little can be concluded through inference) I find it entirely possible that we're arguing the same thing here.
I suppose that makes sense. I think it's more likely that they question everything that they disagree with on a Biblical interpretive basis and they get lucky in your eyes by questioning pure inferences. Of course, I strongly disagree that inferences are somehow lesser and cannot be as well supported as more direct observations. If we see precisely the same wear pattern in Dinosaur teeth as in organisms today with extremely similar teeth is it somehow highly questionable that they ate similar foods?

Meh, bias could be a problem if scientists weren't constantly competing for funding! The scientist that publishes a new finding especially if they prove another scientist wrong (the more prominent the better) is assured funding for years. It's one case where individuals are each rather biased but their biases are continually attacked and questioned. For example your mention of gradualism:

How is this a serious blow to evolution? Evolutionists have concluded that gradualism is not by any means the only process by which species change. When a diverse population is suddenly pressed with high selective pressure, the average alleles will change rapidly. I mean, it might be a blow to somebody who claims pure gradualism, but the theory of evolution isn't pinned to gradualism.

Anyway, I'd rather not get into a detailed argument over the merits of different problems you think exist with evolution. I hope after reading this, you'll understand where I got the idea you thought "there are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it." Do forgive me if I misinterpreted this post -- this phrase along with associating inference with guessing made me question your understanding of how well supported pure inference can be.

Hello Deamiter,

I rather enjoyed reading and understading the spirit behind this post. It seems that which aims to clarify. As to a few points I think I would insist direct opbservation and repeatablity is the highest order of truth we can achieve. However you are not wrong that we can rely on artifacts but these need good systems and cross referencing. Many issues are simply terminology but still applicable in some way to the truth.
As to quantum leaps that is certainly not something around in Darwin's time. It has come to be argued as a result of some of the porblems faced. That can be debated.
I generally regard a truth seeker as generaly being polite, and seeking to clarify. If we are here to determine research in science should we not conduct it properly even here?
If I say, "I do not like water", for example, how will this be approached by dirrent individuals? The one who responds in a way such as:
"Are you some kind of idiot.? You are mainly compossed of water, you would die without it!" . You weak minded and silly fool".

Another response could be:

"I am sorry, I do not understand, to which context are you refering? Is it you do not like drinking water alone and perhaps perfer tea or is it that you are afraid to swim? You certainly cannot hate all water, or you would be a pile of dust"

Who is doing the research to clarify rather than junping to a conclusion? I know people are in a forum such as this for many reasons. Some of them are here to visit the zoo of "wackos" they can mock and humiliate with their "superior intellects". Other's are here to condemn the worldy vice. However some of us are just trying to make sense of a confusing world.

 

[Deamiter]

Who is doing the research to clarify rather than junping to a conclusion? I know people are in a forum such as this for many reasons. Some of them are here to visit the zoo of "wackos" they can mock and humiliate with their "superior intellects". Other's are here to condemn the worldy vice. However some of us are just trying to make sense of a confusing world.

Perhaps you have described quite a few people, but I've found that the majority of people who post here regularly are somewhat different. And this absolutely includes people who accept both creationism and evolution. These people are not here to impose their views on others or to condemn others but to learn and improve their own understanding through debate.

The jumping to conclusions you observe is a simple effect of polarization in any debate -- when people generally fall into opposing camps, and when the majority of newcomers fall into one camp or the other, it's not uncommon to interpret a newcomer's post in light of one camp or the other. It's unfortunate, but it's something that happens on every board throughout the internet. Unless you spend a significant amount of time lurking and understanding a community's position and language, you are going to be misunderstood in your first few posts.

Further, while some don't come here to debate, this is primarily a debate forum. Debate is different from normal conversations as it presupposes that there are two opposing views. Now we certainly have discussion threads and we don't always debate here, but all the regulars generally know where the other regulars lie and even in a discussion of radiometric dating, we know who is probably going to ask questions for the sole purpose of trying to find problems with the dating and who is going to be asking questions trying to lead others to an understanding of the accuracy of the dating.

Finally, I don't know how much internet posting you've done (away from CF anyway) but there are thousands of articles and dissertations being written on the effect of the internet on conversations and social interactions. What might be polite and common in person is not necessarily considered polite on the internet. Common phrasing and reactions are also very different. Is this good or bad? Either way, it's a fact of how impersonal written communication is conducted. While I agree it's not always the best form of communication (for example, I don't consider anybody on the board a friend even though I'm sure many would be my friends if I met them in real life) it also has advantages like the unique ability to bring thousands of people from all over the world to the same place to discuss topics we are all interested in.

Interestingly enough, there is another aspect of internet communication that has caused this exchange of misunderstanding. Quite simply, since we're not face-to-face, it's important to be extremely precise in your wording. We can't immediately clear up misunderstandings and when somebody focuses on a sentence that doesn't say exactly what you meant, it can go on for days before you even realize you said what they claim you said (that few relations can be concluded based on fossils for example). It takes practice to be precise and to avoid phrases that you use locally but that don't translate well worldwide. Some people couldn't care less and just assume that they're being clear and everybody else is out to twist their words. The best way to go about it, however, is to assume that your words WILL be misunderstood and when somebody twists your words it's not malice but an honest misunderstanding due to small differences in culture and dialect.

On an unrelated note, I'd love to participate in a thread devoted to some of those shortcomings of evolution you mentioned earlier. You should certainly make your position clear to avoid some of the assumptions that bug you, but I think at least a few of those problems could be solved for you.

 

[gluadys]

I read that post, but it does not inform me as to HOW, by what scientific method, these ages were determined. Repeating already available information is not productive.

You never asked that question. At least, not in the post I responded too. You just misinterpreted the dates to make it sound like there was a huge range when there wasn't.

Probably the primary method of determining the dates was radiometry. Other methods may have been used as well. Since some form of pictograph/writing is involved, comparison with other inscriptions of known dates would be another tack.


But for precision, rather than my guesswork, go back to the news clipping to find the name and date of the scientific journal the study was published in. Then find the original study in that journal. That will answer all your questions on methodology.

 

[gluadys]

Hi, gwynedd

I've just read everything in this thread since July 25th (when I began a hiatus from the board) and I have been quite fascinated by the discussions you have had with other members. You have a unique perspective and I can understand that it has been a little difficult to get that across.

I do wonder, however, just where you are getting your basic concepts of evolution from and how you view it. I don't mean, do you agree with it or not, but rather, how do you conceptualize the basic process and where do you see the problems.

Evolution has had serious blows to assumptions like gradualism.

Don't you find that Gould and Eldredge dealt with that competently? I don't understand why you call it a "serious blow".

It does not have good conceptual models for system evolution where component changes can degrade the system.

I think I would appreciate a bit more clarification of this concept. I have never really understood the objection of "degradation" as applied to biological evolution. What does it mean for a species to have a "degraded" system component? The closest thing that comes to in my vocabulary is "vestigial organs", but they are not really a problem for evolutionary theory.

It does not have good conceptual models of how natural selection works on gradualism since a temporary condition of no advantage will not be selected.

Why would it need to be selected? Is it not enough that it be inherited over N generations as a variation? As long as it survives it is available for selection should circumstances warrant.

Also, of course, adaptive selection is not the only form of evolutionary selection either. Variations can be selected on a basis other than advantage in some situations.

For the most part all we see are chimeras now.

Could you clarify what you mean by "chimeras" in this context. I think I know the biological meaning, but I would like to know we are on the same page before attempting any discussion.

The fossil record has been a big disappointment.

How so? Has any fossil failed to add confirmatory evidence for evolutionary phylogeny?

Protein synthesis is still a conundrum.

Not a huge problem yet. "Still" makes it sound as if this has been a long-standing issue when it is really a relatively new field of study. There is no doubt that the arena of new breakthroughs in understanding evolution (as in biology generally) is molecular biology. We sometimes forget just how young this whole field of study is. After all, its only about 30 years since Crick and Watson cracked the structure of DNA and we have only just completed (in rough at that) the human genome with lots and lots of other genomes still to study. Then the whole complex business of getting from DNA through RNA transmission and translation to protein synthesis, not to mention the many other functions of DNA and RNA that we are barely able to make sense of yet. I, for one, am amazed at how much we have learned already, and quite content to wait for further developments without despair.

If it were not for creationists, how many people would think the moths were "evolution " rather than natural selection?

Oh, that's just typical creationist manipulation of semantics. The moths are an excellent example of evolution by natural selection. Treating "evolution" and "natural selection" as equal and mutually exclusive terms is a category error. Its like saying a person was "steering" the car, not "driving" it. As if one could steer a vehicle one is not driving.

 

[gwynedd1]

Hi, gwynedd

I've just read everything in this thread since July 25th (when I began a hiatus from the board) and I have been quite fascinated by the discussions you have had with other members. You have a unique perspective and I can understand that it has been a little difficult to get that across.

Hello gluadys,

I suppose it may be because I tend to be apolitical on the issue as well as being a bit of an existentialist. It is always a challenge to deal with politics because such beliefs are not inherently rational at full maturity and get a bit tough like a long pod of Okra. Ultimately, it does not answer debates on theism at any level. As I have pointed out in another thread, creation story #1 fits evolution . It is also consistent with a Hebrew God that send Greeks to move out Persians . How many Christians take note the rather naturalistic approach? As to Evolutionists why are the preconditions for life possible? Why hydrocarbon? It is not going to put that to rest. So why not look at the facts?

I do wonder, however, just where you are getting your basic concepts of evolution from and how you view it. I don't mean, do you agree with it or not, but rather, how do you conceptualize the basic process and where do you see the problems.

It has been awhile since I looked at the debate. So I am sure I have missed a few things. Stopping by here, it seemed more like a coffee house after the bars closed, not before. Evolution does not have an elegant union of scale. Punctuated equilibrium attempts to answer the fossil record and lack of transition organ states but is a terrible model for moving across a phylum. It certainly is better suited to coexist with natural selection. The change is prominent enough to be selected.
Gradualism certainly does better in some regards but natural selection is going to be its enemy most of the time. We also don't see the patterns alive or dead. Gradualism should predict certainly "marginal tissue" even more so. Perhaps there will be an answer to this. Perhaps its obvious and we missed it. Is it cancer? Cancer quickly creates useless tissue. Microbiology is certainly having a better time of it.

Don't you find that Gould and Eldredge dealt with that competently? I don't understand why you call it a "serious blow".

It reminds me of the particle-wave theory of light. Punctuated and gradualism are used to fit. Both concepts follow formula and cook book methods and are not good theoretical systems.

I think I would appreciate a bit more clarification of this concept. I have never really understood the objection of "degradation" as applied to biological evolution. What does it mean for a species to have a "degraded" system component? The closest thing that comes to in my vocabulary is "vestigial organs", but they are not really a problem for evolutionary theory.

Our nervous system runs our lungs which drives our circulatory system etc. "Improving" the nervous system may result in degradation of the circulatory system like too much oxygen etc. Systems are not a simple matter to improve like claws.

Why would it need to be selected? Is it not enough that it be inherited over N generations as a variation? As long as it survives it is available for selection should circumstances warrant.

Essentially the catastrophic event or varying intensity of selective pressure is one of the better theories. Isolation seems necessary for speciation. However in those cases we did not find "marginal tissue".

Also, of course, adaptive selection is not the only form of evolutionary selection either. Variations can be selected on a basis other than advantage in some situations.

Those are typically sex based I think.

Could you clarify what you mean by "chimeras" in this context. I think I know the biological meaning, but I would like to know we are on the same page before attempting any discussion.

The Gould concept essentially. Odd combinations but fully functional. Platypus is the classic example.

How so? Has any fossil failed to add confirmatory evidence for evolutionary phylogeny?

I just do not see it supporting the various theories. It does not support gradualism and we should find the odd isolated transition organs even with what is living in our era. I would say the best response is fossils are quite rare and it does not do us the favor of preserving.

Not a huge problem yet. "Still" makes it sound as if this has been a long-standing issue when it is really a relatively new field of study. There is no doubt that the arena of new breakthroughs in understanding evolution (as in biology generally) is molecular biology. We sometimes forget just how young this whole field of study is. After all, its only about 30 years since Crick and Watson cracked the structure of DNA and we have only just completed (in rough at that) the human genome with lots and lots of other genomes still to study. Then the whole complex business of getting from DNA through RNA transmission and translation to protein synthesis, not to mention the many other functions of DNA and RNA that we are barely able to make sense of yet. I, for one, am amazed at how much we have learned already, and quite content to wait for further developments without despair.

That is why it is too early to judge.

Oh, that's just typical creationist manipulation of semantics. The moths are an excellent example of evolution by natural selection. Treating "evolution" and "natural selection" as equal and mutually exclusive terms is a category error. Its like saying a person was "steering" the car, not "driving" it. As if one could steer a vehicle one is not driving.

That is not semantics. The Creationists are correct. The gypsy moth is not a good example of evolution, just variability within a species. The better analogy is it is like driving to the shore and turning into a boat.

Thanks for being so polite.

 

[gluadys]

Hello gluadys,

I suppose it may be because I tend to be apolitical on the issue as well as being a bit of an existentialist.

lol I am far from apolitical, but philosophically I strongly lean to existentialism too. I like the existentialist focus on phenomena as given.

Ultimately, it does not answer debates on theism at any level.

Indeed not. I suppose one of my frustrations with the debate is that creationists seem to expect that of evolution. It is an unrealistic expectation.

As I have pointed out in another thread, creation story #1 fits evolution . It is also consistent with a Hebrew God that send Greeks to move out Persians . How many Christians take note the rather naturalistic approach?

Oh, you are hitting on one of my favorite themes i.e. that God normally chooses to work through natural means even for "miracles", so "natural" explanations are not per se "God-denying" explanations.

As to Evolutionists why are the preconditions for life possible? Why hydrocarbon? It is not going to put that to rest.

Well, evolution is not philosophy. Why should we ask evolutionists to answer such questions on the basis of evolution? They are outside the sphere of biological theory.

Evolution does not have an elegant union of scale.

This is where your answers start provoking more questions than enlightenment. What do you mean by "union of scale"? And what is your basis for saying it is not found in evolution?

The nearest concept I can find in evolutionary biology is the controversy over the unit of selection. Is it the gene, the organism, the species?

I do find a lot of the misconceptions around evolution stem from mis-assignment of units. Many people have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that evolutionary change is a change in population, not in individuals.

Punctuated equilibrium attempts to answer the fossil record and lack of transition organ states but is a terrible model for moving across a phylum.

It is? Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? I am not even certain what you mean by "moving across a phylum".

I am not sure that punk eek has much relevance to phyla anyway. The aim of punk eek was to deal with the lack of species to species transitions in the fossil record. Gould never saw any problem with the fossil record at the level of higher taxa. I'll try to find a relevant quote on that point as it is one creationists often quote-mine, but I've read enough Gould to know that he considered the higher taxa transitions to be well-documented in the fossil record.

It certainly is better suited to coexist with natural selection. The change is prominent enough to be selected.

Do you have a metric in mind when you speak of a change being "prominent enough" to be selected? What constitutes being "prominent enough"? How is the benchmark set in nature?

Gradualism certainly does better in some regards but natural selection is going to be its enemy most of the time.

Well that is another statement you are going to have to explain for me. I don't have a clue how you came to that conclusion.

I don't find it an obvious one at all. What makes natural selection an "enemy" of gradualism? I know of no biologist or paleontologist who would support such a statement.

btw have you read Gould's analysis of the meaning of "gradualism"?

We also don't see the patterns alive or dead.

Another conclusion for which I see no premises. Excuse me if I am sounding a bit impatient here. But, can you give an example of a pattern you expect to see that you don't find? Why do you expect to see this pattern?

What about the patterns we do see? Most notably the phylogenetic pattern.

Gradualism should predict certainly "marginal tissue" even more so.

Sorry, but here's another one of those statements. I really have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by "marginal tissue" in the first place. Secondly, why do you say gradualism should predict it?

To me it is very important to clear up these definitional matters. It has long been obvious to me that "theory of evolution" has very different meanings to biologists and creationists and one can go on a long time debating only to discover that one has not really been talking about the same thing in the first place. The debate has continued for so long that creationism has a fully-developed model of evolution that differs substantially from the biological model. Of course, it is a straw-man model, but the average creationist doesn't know that.

It reminds me of the particle-wave theory of light. Punctuated and gradualism are used to fit. Both concepts follow formula and cook book methods and are not good theoretical systems.

"cook book" methods? That's a pretty blanket condemnation. Surely the criterion is whether the theory generates what is actually observed. Both gradualism and punk eek do in the appropriate circumstances.

Our nervous system runs our lungs which drives our circulatory system etc. "Improving" the nervous system may result in degradation of the circulatory system like too much oxygen etc. Systems are not a simple matter to improve like claws.

Yes, it's a matter of balance. Adaptation is really a different concept than improvement and evolution is about the former, not the latter.

Essentially the catastrophic event or varying intensity of selective pressure is one of the better theories.

A major catastrophic event introduces particularly intense selective pressure on many species at the same time. Any event which ups the selective pressure on a species is locally catastrophic for that species e.g. spraying your garden with insecticide is a local catastrophe for non-resistant insects. So one is not really talking about different things here. It is all a matter of varying selective pressure.

Isolation seems necessary for speciation.

Obviously. How else do you prevent gene flow?

However in those cases we did not find "marginal tissue".

See above. I am totally bamboozled by this concept and until I grasp it I cannot comment.

Those are typically sex based I think.

Often, but there are other mechanisms as well such as founder's effect.

The Gould concept essentially. Odd combinations but fully functional. Platypus is the classic example.

Ah, that is not what chimera means to me at all. Here is the biological meaning:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Chimera

By this definition, the platypus is not a chimera. Nor do I think Gould ever referred to it as such. I think you may be mistaking his meaning. I doubt that he was ever that careless with his vocabulary.

The platypus fits well into the nested hierarchy. Its apparent "cobbled-together" nature is based on a purely popular and superficial image.

As noted in the article above, evolutionary theory predicts that chimeras (above the genetic level) will not be found in nature. They would be a violation of the nested hierarchy. Finding a genuine natural chimera would be a telling blow to the theory of evolution.

I just do not see it supporting the various theories.

Various theories? I only know of one theory of evolution (apart from straw man versions) and one standard phylogeny. What various theories are you speaking of?

It does not support gradualism

I think you may be operating from ignorance of the fossil record here. Outside the specialization of paleontology we tend to focus overmuch on the vertebrate lineage, especially terrestrial vertebrates, and the comparative rarity of terrestrial fossils makes it often difficult to establish the gradual nature of many transitions. But most fossils (over 90% IIRC) are marine fossils and there are numerous instances of gradualism in marine invertebrates.

I don't know of a single fossil discovery that has not "filled in" a missing section of gradual transition. Do you?

and we should find the odd isolated transition organs even with what is living in our era.

The key question here is by what criteria do you establish that an organ is transitional. Without clear benchmarks all you get is a "yes it is-no it isn't" exchange. What makes the reptilian three-chambered heart not transitional between the piscean two-chambered and the mammalian four-chambered heart?

I would say the best response is fossils are quite rare and it does not do us the favor of preserving.

In short, you are not looking at the fossil record at all. You are looking at the deficiencies in the fossil record. You are not arguing from the facts but from the absence of evidence.

I find this focus on what the fossil record does not tell us yet as opposed to what the existing fossil evidence does tell us frustrating. Should we not build theories on present facts rather than speculate about as-yet-undiscovered evidence?

How does the currently known fossil record fail to support the theory of evolution? And compared to the fossil record as known 50 years ago (not to mention 150 years ago) does not the currently known fossil record provide more, not less, evidence for the validation of the theory?

That is why it is too early to judge.

Maybe and maybe not. Depends on what you are saying it is too early to judge. Maybe we don't need to know the details of protein synthesis to make some judgments because we have enough other lines of evidence on which to base the conclusion.

That is not semantics. The Creationists are correct. The gypsy moth is not a good example of evolution, just variability within a species.

Gyrpsy moth? Do you mean pepper moth? That is the one I thought you were referring to.

And it is very much semantics. The pepper moth case shows more than variability in the species.

Variability means that a trait exists in two or more expressions within the same population. In this case, the presence or absence of melanism.

But the history of the pepper moth shows more than the existence of these variants. It shows the selection of one variant over the other in differing environmental conditions. The factor of selection makes it evolutionary adaptation, not just variability.

What creationists are doing is extending the meaning of "variability" to include "adaptation" in order to avoid the term "evolution". Similarly, elevating "natural selection" to the same semantic category as "evolution" implies that "natural selection" is an alternate to evolution instead of a mechanism of evolutionary change.

This is not a genuine scientific challenge to biological evolution. It is a verbal challenge of semantic re-definition. Renaming something does not change the objective fact of what it is.

The better analogy is it is like driving to the shore and turning into a boat.

No, it is not a better analogy. I've been meaning to pull together a thread-starter on some of the popular misconceptions around evolution. This illustrates the "restriction of scope" misconception. You are limiting the term "evolution" to "evolution which produces a new species". What you forget is that the "evolution which produces a new species" and the "evolution which produces adaptation in a population" are exactly the same process. There is no biological difference between them.

The "evolution which produces adaptation in a population" will eventually produce a new species as well. And in that process, natural selection is a mechanism, not an alternative to the process as a whole.

Thanks for being so polite.

I've pressed you a little harder this time. I hope I am still being polite.

 

[gluadys]

I just read over my post above and realized that no where in your post did you answer my original question.

how do you conceptualize the basic process [of evolution] and where do you see the problems.

You dealt with a number of the problems you see, but you never described your concept of the basic process of evolution.

As I see it, a number of the problems are really pseudo-problems stemming from deficiencies in understanding the process of biological evolution in the first place.

This leads to erronoeous predictions and expectations.

So would you try again to actually describe the process of evolution as you think it happens. Please?

 

[archaeologist]

just a reminder why this thread exists-- read Dr. Eric Cline's book. From Eden to Exile, and you will have your answers as the secular world does not.

it is an interesting book but falls far short in stating anything we didn't know.

secular scientists do not have the answers.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... it is an interesting book but falls far short in stating anything we didn't know.

...

So, if I have not misunderstood, we know far more than is in the book.

Is that what makes it interesting to you?

 

[archaeologist]

here is another good reason why we do not believe secular scientists, their results are finite and can lead to disaster:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_us/bridge_collapse

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

here is another good reason why we do not believe secular scientists, their results are finite and can lead to disaster:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_re_us/bridge_collapse

Nonsesne.

Read the article and you will see it is a question of inadequate maintenance over a 17 year period.

 

[theFijian]

Frankly archie, it's sickening that you would use this tragedy as a platform for your anti-science rhetoric. Of course you conveniently ignore that it is secular science that the medical staff are using to save the lives of those injured. You've overstepped the mark this time archie.

 

[archaeologist]

You've overstepped the mark this time archie.

not at all. it is reality and the follow-up article states that 70,000 bridges face problems. the same disaster could strike multiple times, this is the reality of life. get used to it.

 

[theFijian]

not at all. it is reality and the follow-up article states that 70,000 bridges face problems. the same disaster could strike multiple times, this is the reality of life. get used to it.

Why compound your error further archie?