|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 9, 2008 20:43:45 GMT -4
Of course, in those instances there was an intelligent designer involved. An intelligent observer, at the very least. And similar circumstances couldn't have arisen in nature over millions of years because...? Of course not, nothing can "prove" a theory to be correct. Gravitational theory can't be proven correct. So we can stop arguing with HB's and CT's, and just agree that all hypotheses are equally valid, and none can be absolutely proven more correct than another.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Dec 9, 2008 21:08:20 GMT -4
And evolutionary theory has been used to justify some rather immoral practices, [...] to the Khmer Rouge. That sounds odd. Marxists generally don't like evolution theory, or modern geology for that matter. It doesn't jive with some of their most basic doctrines. (Hence Lysenkoism.) On the other hand, evolution theory has been abused by a philosophy call Social Darwinism which promotes radical capitalism. Anyhow, evolution theory and genetic research play an important role these days in developing new drugs and treatments for illnesses. It saved many lives. Sounds very useful to me.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2008 11:56:28 GMT -4
I also said that I can't think of any instance where religion actually was the source of immoral behavior, only where a particular relgious group behaved immorally and used religion as their excuse. So, when a Christian Scientist lets their child die of an easily-treatable medical condition, are they just using their religion as an excuse to commit filicide? Yes, although sects of Christian Scientists that demand abhorance of modern medicine are what I would describe as "fringe groups". Christianity does teach that faith heals, but does not teach that you shouldn't make use of doctors. One of the gospel writers, Luke, was a doctor. Exactly - just as some groups use a gross misunderstanding of their religious beliefs to provide an excuse for their immoral behavior.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2008 12:09:28 GMT -4
Usually science works with what is directly testable and repeatable. So then, archaeology, cosmology, and theoretical physics aren't sciences? No, they just aren't hard sciences. Their results are less sure because they are less testable. Well, when they are repeated enough with consistant results and when their results are put to work in real world applications we can be reasonably certain that we have identified real and useful principles, but never aboslutely certain we understand everything involved, no.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 10, 2008 12:26:36 GMT -4
Of course, in those instances there was an intelligent designer involved. An intelligent observer, at the very least. Designer. As far as I can tell, the scientists involved in these experiments also created the conditions that caused speciation. Perhaps they might have, but the experiments don't show that they would have without the actions of an intelligent designer. Not at all. Theories in the soft sciences can still be more or less probable. We just can't be quite as sure of our conlcusions. With something like the Apollo program or 9/11 we have a great deal of documentation and living eyewitnesses, so we can be reasonably certain of the major details around those events. For something like the historicity of Socrates, where the events are ancient, we have little documentation, and no access to living eyewitnesses, our conclusions are necessarily much less certain.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 10, 2008 13:01:18 GMT -4
Depends on where you go, Echnaton. There are some pretty big ren faires in Texas.
I went to the Tex Ren Fest this year for the first time in years. Maybe it was the Texas dialect of the Elizabethan English that threw me off.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 10, 2008 13:56:03 GMT -4
Funnily enough, my understanding is that Appalachian English is probably the closest we have to how the common Elizabethan spoke. I still think it would be weird to go to a ren faire there.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 11, 2008 20:01:47 GMT -4
An intelligent observer, at the very least. Designer. As far as I can tell, the scientists involved in these experiments also created the conditions that caused speciation. When I test gravity I also create the conditions that allow my two different masses to fall a fixed distance. When I test for antibody affinity I create the conditions that allow the antibody and antigen to come into contact. When engineers test the breaking stress of a structure they create the conditions that cause it to break. Every experiment is conducted under such conditions as requires the input of an intelligent experimental designer. That does not in any way speak to the idea that there might be one controlling absolutely everything. Nor can they, because the intelligent designer is the ultimate non-scientific catch-all. Everything that happens can be attributed to an intelligent designer, with no critical thought whatsoever. All the engineers who designed Apollo might have been putting any old numbers in, and the intelligent entity just reached out and carried the capsule to the Moon and back. Such an entity exists outside of any science, and no science can ever prove or disprove his existence. With respect, your argument is the ultimate proof of that. Many anti-evolutionists use the argument that speciation has never been observed under controlled condtions despite all the selection that humans have been doing. Now it finally happens under lab controlled conditions, and the response is a dismissal because it still doesn't show that an intelligent designer wasn't involved.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 12, 2008 0:07:15 GMT -4
Every experiment is conducted under such conditions as requires the input of an intelligent experimental designer. That does not in any way speak to the idea that there might be one controlling absolutely everything. Unless you view life as an experiment. My real point is that these are relatively short-term experiments that involve scientists actively trying to force speciation. As such they are somewhat removed from what actually happens in nature. That makes it difficult to argue that this proves that nature by itself will act in the same way. I wouldn't call myself an "anti-evolutionist". I'm more of an "evolutionary skeptic", and I never argued that speciation has never been observed under controlled conditions - merely that I was unaware of it having been observed at all.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 13, 2008 10:47:30 GMT -4
The most startling and controversial idea presented in evolution is theory common decent. The idea that all living organisms have a common root or evolutionary genealogy. Common decent, like all theories, a logical proposition based on observations. From inception it predicted that as we learn more about biology, we will find increasing evidence of common ancestry. That is we will find more and more similarities between species that are closely related.
Darwin made this prediction about a century before the method of inheritance was discovered a the field of molecular biology (MB) was founded. However all the vast amount of knowledge gained in in MB have confirmed the theory of common decent, to the point that it really is beyond reasonable question. It makes no more since to be skeptical of common decent that it does to be skeptical of the Apollo program.
The DNA of all organisms show remarkable similarities and these similarities confirm the predictions of common decent and the first hundred years of study based on that theory. The DNA of apes and humans are remarkably similar. When humans, apes and other primates are compared the similarities show a patern of relationship that confirms common decent. When primates are compared to other groups of animals, the DNA makes a consistent, compelling and undeniable argument that confirms common decent.
Evolution and common decent have been so thoroughly studied and confirmed by such a broad array of evidence that they have become a mater of fact.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 13, 2008 18:14:46 GMT -4
Does similarity always indicate a common descent?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 14, 2008 11:09:18 GMT -4
Er, so the intent of such a person is specifically to cause the death of the child, not to place their faith in God's plan? How does one misunderstand (grossly or otherwise) their religious beliefs? If one has faith that God commands them to behave in a certain manner, then that's what they believe. With something like the Apollo program or 9/11 we have a great deal of documentation and living eyewitnesses, so we can be reasonably certain of the major details around those events. Unless we were to consider the possibility of supernatural intervention, that is. I never argued that speciation has never been observed under controlled conditions - merely that I was unaware of it having been observed at all. Then perhaps there is much more about evolutionary science of which you are unaware? Does similarity always indicate a common descent? It's certainly enough to legally establish parentage... unless we allow possible supernatural intervention as a valid rebuttal to genetic test results: "That's not my son, Your Honor. God just happened to assemble his Y-chromosome identically to mine."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 15, 2008 2:06:40 GMT -4
Er, so the intent of such a person is specifically to cause the death of the child, not to place their faith in God's plan? It's probably not their intent, just the result. Perhaps I should have said doctrine rather than beliefs. There are plenty of people out there who do not understand what their religions actually teach. That's not what I was referring to. Even on the most documented of historic events there can still be some uncertainty in major details. And often there is no way to clear it up and find out what really happened - witnesses have now been tainted by the acounts of others, no documentation exists for a particular point, or there weren't any surviving witnesses in the first place. And the event is obviously not repeatable. Most likely, yes. There is no doubt quite a bit about religion that you are unaware of as well. I'm not a biologist, but the fundamentals I know about science in general and biology in particular are probably more than the layman. My opinion is not completely uninformed. It is enough to sufficiently establish legal human parentage, yes. But there is always a small chance of error, and other evidence is usually taken into acount to reduce that chance. But we're talking relationships between species across millions of years, not simple paternity. We're something like 99% similar to chimpanzees in our DNA, but we know humans aren't descended from chimps because they're a contemporary species. Evolution argues that we have a common ancestor, but even DNA testing can't prove that, it can only show similarity, and we simply guess that a common ancestor is how this similiarity could have come about. It seems reasonable (to some, at least) and fits the facts in evidence, but is it what really happened?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 15, 2008 10:52:23 GMT -4
Does similarity always indicate a common descent? The point is to answer the question about predictions of the ToE. One prediction was that further knowledge would confirm common decent. The field of molecular biology has met that prediction in a way that was not even in the realm of knowledge in Darwin's time. I am not an expert on biology and don't have a definitive answer to your question. However it certainly appears to me that your questions are aimed not at acquiring an understanding but maintaining an unreasonable skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 15, 2008 13:57:31 GMT -4
There are examples of similarity that are not also examples of common descent, echnaton, but on closer examination, the similarities aren't as strong as they seem. The wings of insects, birds, and bats are all wings. However, the wings of birds are more similar to the front arms of their reptile cousins than they are to insectile wings, and the wings of bats are more similar to the membranes of flying squirrels than they are to bird wings.
|
|