1541 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

They're Here on Sep 15 2008, 11:29 PM, said:

The same question could be asked of churches, if abiogenesis were true, why are you teaching the lie of Christianity to the exclusion of other theories? However, the major difference is that Science is required learning and church is optional. So I would still like you to think through the implications of my question. You have a right to refuse of course, it's your choice.

Schools, even public schools, have the authority to teach classes in religion:  I took one when I was in grade school.  That authority still exists.  It is not often implemented because schools want to avoid controversy and parents (who don't know what is actually being taught) are afraid their darlings will learn something about somebody's else's beliefs and start asking questions, a thing that religion goes to extraordinary lengths to curtail.  Schools can require religion classes, but most choose not to.

You get the best results when you keep science and religion separate.  Scientists are not equipped for discussions of religion and religionists are not equipped for science.  Putting the two together is like trying to mix hot water with cold water:  the result is luke warm, at best.

Quote

I never opposed abiogenesis. I have no interest in withholding knowledge from anyone. I feel strongly that people should be given the full extent of possibilities so they can recognize evidence when they come across it or someone can test for it when they have the means. Science has no such morals and feels content to stonewall progress and intellectual thought. Science makes itself an authority on matters, but makes no attempt to disclose that there are certain possibilities it has no methodology to test for.

Much of what gets presented by creationists as evidence is material that was examined and rejected by the scientific community decades, or even centuries, ago.  There is no point in reinventing the wheel, so scientists go on to other things.  The creationist community perceives this as "stonewalling" or refusal to consider their pov.

The best way past this problem is to do your homework.  Learn what is going on in the areas of evolutionary biology, paleontology and the other applicable sciences.  If you find problems, write them up and submit them to peer-reviewed journals.  I see articles every month where somebody is critiqueing a technique, pointing out problems with a theory, or offering a solution to a methodology problem.

Anybody who wants to put in the time can write an article and get it published in a scientific journal.  You don't need a Ph.D.  All you need is sound reasoning.  BUT:  journals are very prestige-conscious.  They want to carry articles that will shake up the field and get people to buy their publications, but they don't want to be known for publishing bad science because that will damage their prestige/sales.  It's a fine line, but one that can be surmounted.

Science makes nature the final authority.  I can write all the equations for storm damage I can think of, but if they don't fit my data set, I'm going to get raked over the coals.  Real data is extremely difficult to forge; there are just too many tests that can detect forgeries.  For example:  Gregor Mendel.  In his famous study of garden peas, he fudged his data to make it support his conclusions.  Statistical tests on his original data, tests that didn't exist in his day, detected the cheating and led to re-examination of his genetic theory.  He was right, but for the wrong reason.  Another example:  I will bet that right now, you can't name 30 single digits off the top of your head and have the result pass a test for randomness.  This is what keeps scientists honest:  someday, even if it's three centuries from now, somebody will go over your data to see if it really says what you claim it does (Galileo's original sunspot observation from 1610 is still the first entry on lists of sunspot observations; some data never dies.).

Science classes, at least at the college level, are very clear that there are areas, especially religion and certain parts of philosophy, where science cannot go because it does not have the tools.  The problems seem to occur when religionists and philosophers try to get into science without having the tools to go there (A lot of them don't even realize what they are doing.).

Another problem:  grade school and high school science courses are taught by teachers, not scientists.  They often don't have the means of understanding the subjects, themselves.  They sometimes make claims for science that it can't live up to.  Writers of popular science magazines have the same problem.  Be careful where you get your information.

Doug

[Leonardo]

They're Here on Sep 16 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

It's not a loaded question. A loaded question is: "Are you still beating your wife?" A yes or no answer would imply that the person who answers it has beaten his wife. My question had no yes or no answer and never asked you to confirm or deny anything. In fact, it was only a request for you to look at the large gaping hole in the practice of science education rationally.

Here is your question:

Quote

If it is true that aliens created our DNA then sent it here by means of directed panspermia, then why are we teaching the lie of abiogenesis to the exclusion of all other hypotheses?

And it is loaded, here's why...

You assume the existence of aliens. If I was to answer in an affirmative or negative manner to your question I am, by default, agreeing to this assumption. I do not.

You assume abiogenesis is a lie. If I answer in the affirmative or negative to your question I am agreeing, by default, that abiogenesis is a lie. I do not.

You are assuming there are other hypotheses that could be taught in opposition to abiogenesis in a science classroom. If I answer in the affirmative or negative to your question I am agreeing, by default, there are other, valid, scientific hypotheses explaining a possible origin of life. I do not.

You are not asking me to address these assumptions, but instead asking me to answer a question while assuming them all to be true. This is a loaded question.

Break down your question into parts, with a discussion about each before asking anyone to agree to your assumptions.

Quote

I never opposed abiogenesis. I have no interest in withholding knowledge from anyone. I feel strongly that people should be given the full extent of possibilities so they can recognize evidence when they come across it or someone can test for it when they have the means. Science has no such morals and feels content to stonewall progress and intellectual thought. Science makes itself an authority on matters, but makes no attempt to disclose that there are certain possibilities it has no methodology to test for.

Science is an authority on what is Science. ID and other faith-based ideas are not Science. As has been stated by myself and probably every other person who supports Evolution by Natural Selection as being the likely mechanism for the origin of species and abiogenesis as being the likely mechansim for the origin of life, there is no objection to the teaching of ID or Creation myths in the relevant scholastic setting - that being most likely as a social or religious study. This religion-backed movement to push these topics into a science setting ignores this fact [that there is little objection to religious and faith-based subject being taught as religion or faith or a social study], but is a fear-based reaction to the growing acceptance of scientific knowledge over faith and the retreat of religious belief into purely philosophical/metaphysical study.

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. If you are a scientist, you shouldn't need a writer to tell you that. If you had actually watched the entire I.D. vs. Evolution debate video I presented, you would know that. I.D. proponents, indeed those in the debate, are not doubting micro-evolution. Again, more evidence that you do not know the actual position of I.D. proponents.

I am a scientist, technically a biologist. And you don't need to tell me that because there is no difference between micro and macroevolution save time. Listen Irish, I know your a writer and have no formal education regarding science and math. Since you are going on a high school education with all this stuff maybe a simple high school-esq experiment. This was from another topic:

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

Let’s imagine for a moment we have two large holes (holes A and B ) in your backyard filled with water. Between these holes you have a channel which connects them together. What would happen if you poured lots of red food coloring in hole A?

Eventually both holes would be red. The red color would diffuse across the two holes, starting at your entry point in A and crossing to the farthest reaches of B. Now both of our holes are red.

We can think of the each hole as representing 2 populations from the same evolutionary lineage. The food coloring is a representation of allele frequencies in those populations, which is selected for due to varying natural selective pressures. And this diffusion of colors (alleles) is exactly how alleles are spread across a population.

Now let’s imagine you go over to hole B and add lots of yellow food coloring. What happens? The yellow diffuses across hole B into A till eventually we have 2 orange holes.

It is important to note here that while each hole experienced different slightly different selection pressures (red and yellow) the status quo of the populations was maintained because our channel allowed for allele diffusion to occur.

So now let’s have a natural disaster that fills in your channel. Selection pressures continue to slightly different on the two populations. So let’s reach into our grab bag and select another color. This time we get green. So now you go add some green to A.

This time however the color does not diffuse into B. In biology we call this “reproductive isolation” and it simply means that the two populations are no longer “sharing alleles”.
Now let’s add another color to B, again what happens? The same thing, no color is diffused.

The more colors you add the more different these two holes appear not only at the “hole level” –pun intended, that is at a phenotypic level, but also at the microscopic level (like the genotypic level) as small variations in chemical pigments create the differences.

Hope that helps

The small changes that occur for microevolution are what makes the big changes in "macroevolution".

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

Observe the complexities.

Deduce that the best explanation is an Intelligent Designer

How could you experiment on something that is in part scientific and in part philosophical?

You can't. But that doesn't negate the first two steps.

Science is a method of studying our world. For something to be science it needs to be capable of at least all three steps. I ask again, how does ID experiment?

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

About your birds flocking bit:


I think birds flock because of an Aerodynamic advantage. There is also safety in numbers. Do I think it is directed by Evolution? I don't know. Can you prove it? Maybe the head bird says, "Flying V!"

Silly question.

Actually it is not a silly question when you see where I am going with it. Birds flocking is not directed by evolution (well it evolved, but that is not what I am talking about). When birds flock there is no leader, no guidance. Only a simple set of rules such as "Stay two feet from all other birds", "Match speed with birds surrounding you", etc etc etc. Because of these simple rules, a flock of birds appears to be a coordinated, directed effort -As you guess, having a "head bird".

The point is that nature, through simple rules, can create things that look very designed.

IrishAidan on Sep 15 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

Can you prove it is only 0.01% of scientists or is that just slapstick?

Go through the list of professional scientists who have signed the intelligent design letter, which can be found here at the discovery institute's website.

On the list is provided the scientists name and their professional appointment. Highlight the ones whose field is relevant to biology and evolution.  

The National Science Foundation maintains a list of professional scientists in the US. This list can be found here in one of their reports.

In it you will note under biological sciences there are approximately 955,000 scientists in the US. Since you claimed to be not good at math, I'll help you with the calcuation.

Take the number of signers whose field is relevant to biology and evolution and divide that by total number of biologist in the US. Now multiply this number by 100 and you get the approximate % of professional scientists in the US alone (which is actually a much larger % than most of the world) who support ID.

Interestingly enough the NCSE released of list of just biologists whose names are Steve, willing to sign an agreement too:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

To date they more professional biologists whose names are "Steve" then the discovery institute could get scientists to sign their list.


Lastly, I will no longer be replying to your posts Irish as you are not willing to answer those questions in my prior post in bold. If you are interested in actually discussing and debating in some kind of formal/academic/adult manner and in a way that maybe constructive then answer those questions in bold individually. If you are unwilling to do so and to presume you know more about evolution then a professional scientists then you can carry on in that delusion.

[IrishAidan07]

Quote

The small changes that occur for microevolution are what makes the big changes in "macroevolution".

Have any major evolutionary changes been noted?

I can answer that: "No".

And you are wrong - while I am a writer and my main focus in college was, of course, the arts, that doesn't mean I have only a high school education level at math and science. At math? I can, uh, add, subtract, multiply, and divide fractions. That's at least, at the very least, post-doctorate level. Duh. Science? Actually, medical science I'm pretty good at, considering I worked as a paramedic while in college. But as far as this type of science? Basically you're right. Never studied it beyond what was necessary in college which, given my major, wasn't much. Although, keep in mind, I was playing DA and was presenting the I.D. arguments - trying to defend them best I could. Could any I.D. proponent defend them any better? Doubtful. It's hard to defend.

Edited by IrishAidan, 17 September 2008 - 12:48 AM.

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Have any major evolutionary changes been noted?

I can answer that: "No".

And you are wrong - while I am a writer and my main focus in college was, of course, the arts, that doesn't mean I have only a high school education level at math and science. At math? I can, uh, add, subtract, multiply, and divide fractions. That's at least, at the very least, post-doctorate level. Duh. Science? Actually, medical science I'm pretty good at, considering I worked as a paramedic while in college. But as far as this type of science? Basically you're right. Never studied it beyond what was necessary in college which, given my major, wasn't much. Although, keep in mind, I was playing DA and was presenting the I.D. arguments - trying to defend them best I could. Could any I.D. proponent defend them any better? Doubtful. It's hard to defend.

You answered incorrectly, "macroevolution" takes place across geological time, which is a hard concept to understand and why many people have a problem with it. However, we do have some great examples of macroevolution- That is changes at or above the species level. Sometimes speciation events can happen rather quickly, in the thousands or even hundreds of years.

Corn is a great example; Teosinte the ancestor to the corn on your dinner table is where it all started.


The picture is labeled there. Both Teosinte and Mais have been found in anthropological dig sites for years. In fact ancient human sites provide a nice radiative picture of the evolution of corn.

It turns out the mustard family of plants is a great example of macroevolution and very "different" looking changes as well.



We can look at the genetics and even replicate their natural evolution in the lab by crossbreeding experiments (since the ancestral populations are still alive today).



Not to mention we have lab experiments like Diana Dodd's who experimentally confirmed speciation (macroevolution). As I explained in my food coloring example, when a population becomes split into 2 or more populations and reproductively isolated then the "small changes" over time add up. They start to add up quickly. In this experiment 2 fruit fly populations raised two different food sources quickly underwent a speciation event. This is an experiment you can do in your home with one of those little kid science kits:



Probably one of my favorite examples seen in "macroevolution" (evolution) is the host-parasite relationship of figs and fig-wasps. Male fig-wasp pollinators have only two functions to bore holes and to mate, while females are adapted for flying, burrowing and egglaying. Females also have a specialized mouth part which aids in entry to the ostiole. By exiting through the ostiole the female wasps collect pollen from the male flowers near the exit and then deposit it on flowers of the next fruit they enter while laying eggs.



The fig tree has two types of flowers, ones with long styles and ones with short styles. The fig trees evolved in this manner to provide a spot for the pollinators to lay their eggs. Which lay their eggs in the short styles.


Cheaters evolved in the system though. There are some species who never enter through the ostiole. Instead they are able to lay their eggs directly through the fig fruit's wall into the flowers with long styles which would normally be producing seed. No seed and no reproduction of the fig trees. Less fig trees and no reproductive method for the "fair" wasps.



The wasp on the left is a pollinator, while the one on the right with the extra-long ovipositor is a parasitic wasp.


So naturally the fig tree evolved to have varying style length, or "polystylyl". Each species of fig tree has styles of certain lengths. This means that parasitic species of wasps, specific to each type of fig tree have coevolved with the fig tree. We can the question are host and parasite phylogenies more or less similar then we could expect due to chance? Why don't you have a look at the phylogenies and tell us what you think.



One last thing Irish,

If you are an English guy why are you having so much trouble finding and answering the questions in bold?

Edited by Copasetic, 17 September 2008 - 02:40 AM.

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Have any major evolutionary changes been noted?

I can answer that: "No".

And you are wrong - while I am a writer and my main focus in college was, of course, the arts, that doesn't mean I have only a high school education level at math and science. At math? I can, uh, add, subtract, multiply, and divide fractions. That's at least, at the very least, post-doctorate level. Duh. Science? Actually, medical science I'm pretty good at, considering I worked as a paramedic while in college. But as far as this type of science? Basically you're right. Never studied it beyond what was necessary in college which, given my major, wasn't much. Although, keep in mind, I was playing DA and was presenting the I.D. arguments - trying to defend them best I could. Could any I.D. proponent defend them any better? Doubtful. It's hard to defend.

I'm sorry, you think because you can divide fractions that qualifies you at the post-doc level in mathematics? Did I read that wrong?

[IrishAidan07]

Copasetic on Sep 16 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

I'm sorry, you think because you can divide fractions that qualifies you at the post-doc level in mathematics? Did I read that wrong?

You must be a scientist - you have the same sense of humor; or lack thereof.

[Guyver]

Harmony - it's a beautiful thing.  Some of the greatest rock bands of all time (like the Beatles) have been experts at this feat.  Two, three, four, simple music lines interacting to create a beautiful sound.  Now, take an orchestra; dozens, maybe a hundred separate voices.  Strings, horns, percussion, vocals; each it's own single voice.  Put these pieces in a hall and let them sound off for a million years if you want to.  What do you have?  Chaos, cacophony - disorder.

Now, take the same pieces of the same orchestra and put them under the control of a conductor; a maestro if you will.  Provide the intelligence (sheet music).  Now you have a symphony; a thing of beauty.  That's intelligent design.  Science examines the individual pieces of the orchestra in great detail.  God is the conductor, the maestro, he provides the order and the information that allows this life that we see to function.  Without it we are lost.

[Doug1o29]

Guyver on Sep 17 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

Harmony - it's a beautiful thing.  Some of the greatest rock bands of all time (like the Beatles) have been experts at this feat.  Two, three, four, simple music lines interacting to create a beautiful sound.  Now, take an orchestra; dozens, maybe a hundred separate voices.  Strings, horns, percussion, vocals; each it's own single voice.  Put these pieces in a hall and let them sound off for a million years if you want to.  What do you have?  Chaos, cacophony - disorder.

Now, take the same pieces of the same orchestra and put them under the control of a conductor; a maestro if you will.  Provide the intelligence (sheet music).  Now you have a symphony; a thing of beauty.  That's intelligent design.  Science examines the individual pieces of the orchestra in great detail.  God is the conductor, the maestro, he provides the order and the information that allows this life that we see to function.  Without it we are lost.

You might want to consider that evolution is directed by environment and natural selection, resulting in the "symphony of life."  "God" (whatever that is) is not required to produce the result we see.  It is simply irrelevant.

You might want to be careful in how you use some terms.  Chaos and chance operate in very specific ways, definable mathematically.  Creationists seem to think that evolution is haphazard, disordered, but we find that it is highly ordered and occurs in very definable ways.
Doug

[Sherapy]

Guyver on Sep 17 2008, 07:58 AM, said:

Harmony - it's a beautiful thing.  Some of the greatest rock bands of all time (like the Beatles) have been experts at this feat.  Two, three, four, simple music lines interacting to create a beautiful sound.  Now, take an orchestra; dozens, maybe a hundred separate voices.  Strings, horns, percussion, vocals; each it's own single voice.  Put these pieces in a hall and let them sound off for a million years if you want to.  What do you have?  Chaos, cacophony - disorder.

Now, take the same pieces of the same orchestra and put them under the control of a conductor; a maestro if you will.  Provide the intelligence (sheet music).  Now you have a symphony; a thing of beauty.  That's intelligent design.  Science examines the individual pieces of the orchestra in great detail.  God is the conductor, the maestro, he provides the order and the information that allows this life that we see to function.  Without it we are lost.

Life goes on with or without you, its a process that is inbuilt...many use the vehicle of a deity  to understand and grasp the process or are taught this to varying degrees..


their is no hierarchal  order in life this is  just  how man in his ignorance ( not knowing kind) sees it... there is no aspect of life that is bigger than, or better than, or greater then, or more powerful than  any other aspect of life.....Its in this error we have caused so much harm to each other......

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

You must be a scientist - you have the same sense of humor; or lack thereof.

No comment on the "macroevolution" bit. Interesting.

[IrishAidan07]

Copasetic on Sep 17 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

No comment on the "macroevolution" bit. Interesting.

Are there any fossils that indicate any major evolutionary changes?

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

Are there any fossils that indicate any major evolutionary changes?

Yes, but you said fossil evidence is non-exsistant and someone on the other topic said "fossils don't count". So I just showed you "macroevolution" without ever going to the fossil record. As I said the fossil record is, but one line of evidence for the theory of evolution. You can learn all about evolution without ever using an example from paleontology.

I like you Irish, I think you might be learning something  

Edited by Copasetic, 18 September 2008 - 12:32 AM.

[IrishAidan07]

Copasetic on Sep 17 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

Yes, but you said fossil evidence is non-exsistant and someone on the other topic said "fossils don't count". So I just showed you "macroevolution" without ever going to the fossil record. As I said the fossil record is, but one line of evidence for the theory of evolution. You can learn all about evolution without ever using an example from paleontology.

I like you Irish, I think you might be learning something  

No, I quoted a known evolutionist who said that major evolutionary changes in the fossil record are yet to be observed. I mean, if you have it - an article or picture or something, I'd be glad to see it.

Not learning anything I didn't already know. How many times I gotta say I'm playing DA? I said that before all the arguing, debating, throat gouging, et cetera...started.

Well, I did learn a few things from your little examples - but for the most part, I know what evidence there is and isn't for evolution. I also know that I.D. is, basically, a philosophical theory.

I just like arguing. lol.

[Copasetic]

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

No, I quoted a known evolutionist who said that major evolutionary changes in the fossil record are yet to be observed. I mean, if you have it - an article or picture or something, I'd be glad to see it.

Not learning anything I didn't already know. How many times I gotta say I'm playing DA? I said that before all the arguing, debating, throat gouging, et cetera...started.

Well, I did learn a few things from your little examples - but for the most part, I know what evidence there is and isn't for evolution. I also know that I.D. is, basically, a philosophical theory.

I just like arguing. lol.

Sure a great example of this is the transition from reptile to mammal. Reptiles have 4 bones in their jaws, while mammals have 2. We have learned form evolutionary developmental biology (evodevo) that during embryonic development 2 of reptilian jaw bones are responsible for forming the hammer and anvil bones of the inner ear. So we have a perfect example to make a prediction with evolutionary biology. That is, if mammals branched off from reptilian ancestors then we would expect there to be some fossil evidence of this.

A great image with the proper bones highlighted exists at talkorigins.com (the highlighting makes it easier for those not well versed in anatomy to follow along).


A paleontologist Clifford A. Cuffey wrote a wonderful essay for the Society of Paleontologists, Gulf coast section. It can be found HERE. This is a wonderful resource, in which he has complied a chart of morphological comparisons on the fossil forms, from reptiles to mammals. It is a little more in depth as it was written to a scientific audience, so the wordage and terminology can be a bit heavy at times. But, it is entirely referenced with the scientific literature as well.  

From his website:


With this information are you willing to accept that maybe you weren't as familiar with the evidence as you thought?