|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
subbie writes: In any event, this whole subthread really has nothing to do with science. Science only and always talks about evidence, it never talks about proof. And I don't think this is simply a difference in semantics. In the law we really don't talk about proof either. Evidence is pretty much the same as under the scientific method as well. The difference between law and science is in the assessing process and in finality. In law, we weigh evidence for and against using some standard (preponderance, reasonable doubt, clear and convincing) once, and place very high barriers on re-weighing the evidence after a decision is reached. Only when speaking colloquially do we say that any court decision proves anything. This is not to say that courts use the scientific method, but only that in law, proof and evidence mean the same thing that they mean in science. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
We?
Fellow attorney, are you? I didn't know. Actually, I'm in recovery now, and I'm feeling much better. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'm a patent attorney. Some people don't consider patent attorneys to be real lawyers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course that isn't true. If it was true then you would be showing us the reasons why scientists accept the existence of natural selection and then showing us that there were similar reasons for accepting design. And you're not doing that. You're not even TRYING to do that.
quote: You assert it, but the argument seems to be lacking. Even if you are only talking about past changes in evolutionary history and not changes observed in the present day (something which you would need to make clear if it were the case) you still have to deal with the present day evidence that natural selection exists and works - and explain why we should expect your "divine guidance" to produce results which appear to be so close to our expectations for natural evolutionary processes. Until you do that you have literally no case at all - just baseless accusations.
quote: Of course they don't say that at all. It seems that all you want to do is make accusations without providing any real evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: But the evidence does not support evolution, it supports natural selection. Darwin merely suggested that evolution could have used this mechanism. Natural selection does not support evolution, in that species today tend to adapt into their changing environments, rather than evolve. Though it does seem plausible that the ToE does use this mechanism, it is yet unproven. Even with the divine power of God, natural selection would take it's course naturally, so natural selection proves nothing for either theory.
quote: If you are basing your faith on natural processes simply because divine ones are difficult to understand, then you are not basing your opinions on anything scientific, which makes you no less a believer than I. Also assuming that you are right, simply because I am wrong is a fallacy in itself. A baseless arguement. And you too need to be clear on what you mean by 'evolutionary processes'. It's difficult to respond when you generalize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove no you cant prove anything in science you can test and re test and observe and re observe it until the end of time. At some point though it becomes evident that it is true. you want to test natural selection go look at the mating habits of mosses or some other animal the strongest gets the girls the one whit the smaller antlers, smaller muscles .... does not. So the one more phisycl fit passes on his gens, the one whit a mutation that helps him has a better chance of passing on his gens and his kids the ones who got the gens have better chances of mating too. While the ones whit a bad mutation or the ones lacking the new good mutation have lesser chances of mating and their kids the ones who do not get the new good gens or the ones who get the new bad ones have a lesser chance of mating and producing new offspring. that is natural selection it is a process not a deity or some mumbo jumbo. can we test your god guiding evolution well no we cant, can we observe it no we cannot see god remember. So it is fare more probable that natural selection is the cause not some grate Đuđu up on the mountin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4889 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
But the evidence does not support evolution, it supports natural selection. Darwin merely suggested that evolution could have used this mechanism. Natural selection does not support evolution, in that species today tend to adapt into their changing environments, rather than evolve. Though it does seem plausible that the ToE does use this mechanism, it is yet unproven. Even with the divine power of God, natural selection would take it's course naturally, so natural selection proves nothing for either theory
Perhaps if you actually knew anything, you'd be aware that natural selection by definition supports the fact of evolution. Natural selection is the change in frequency of alleles in the population driven by the fact that some alleles express an advantage over others. Those which confer some advantage are more likely to be passed onto the next generation. See that underlined part? It's the definition of evolution. You know what the full name of 'natural selection' is? Evolution by natural selection.
If you are basing your faith on natural processes simply because divine ones are difficult to understand, then you are not basing your opinions on anything scientific, which makes you no less a believer than I.
If you are basing your knowledge on science, then you by definition require the processes to be natural, because science cannot and does not address the supernatural.We don't accept the fact of it being entirely natural on some assumption. We do so because it is demonstrably entirely natural. Science is not a belief system. We trust science, we don't believe it. Stop trying to conflate trust with faith. Also assuming that you are right, simply because I am wrong is a fallacy in itself. A baseless arguement.
Funny that you mention it, because it's exactly what you're doing. "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm just as right as you." Except for the fact that evolution has support in reality, and your favourite brand of Goddidit doesn't.
And you too need to be clear on what you mean by 'evolutionary processes'. It's difficult to respond when you generalize
If you don't know what is meant by "evolutionary processes" then you don't know enough to comment on the subject. Probably better to sit back, shut up and let those that do understand it have a discussion.Incidentally, the processes that PaulK is most likely referring in this context are a) natural selection and b) random mutation. There are many others, of course, that get involved, but anything except the former is off-topic here. Unless you want to do what the original poster hasn't done: present us with evidence that there is something other than just nature involved in selection processes, or alternatively present some form of experiment or possible data which would validate one hypothesis over the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi shadow71 and welcome to the forum.
Just a brief point on a minor side issue;
shadow71 writes: "evangelical atheistic naturalists" such as Dawkins, Dennett et.al. Dennett is primarily a philosopher rather than a scientist. His specialities include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Obviously, he writes a great deal about cognitive and evolutionary science, but I do not feel that he is a fair exemplar of "a scientist". Neither is Dawkins a typical example of "a scientist". Dawkins is actually not the most remarkable research scientist. His great strength has always been the communication of scientific ideas, rather than discovering them himself. Also, he is far better known these days for his atheism than his science. This is far from typical of scientists as a whole, most of whom prefer to... well, do science, rather than write polemics against Christianity. The vast majority of scientists do not concern themselves with people's religious beliefs. Dennett and Dawkins do (and it would be fair to describe their zeal for de-conversion as "evangelical") but they are very far from being typical of scientists as a whole. You shouldn't let them colour your image of the average scientist. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Please don't participate under multiple IDs - especially when one of them has been suspended. Your accounts have been merged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course this is untrue, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. For instance the many intermediate fossils that have been discovered.
quote: Then it's a good job that I'm not doing that then. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that evolution better explains the evidence than "divine processes".
quote: And I'm not doing that either.
quote: The whole array of processes covered by evolutionary theory - selection, mutation, drift etc. in all their variations. I don't see why you would find that hard to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Controlling the nature of "natural means" would be a supernatural means that would not be able to be detected. Well if it can't be detected where do you think the idea that there is a supernatural cause is derived from?
RAZD writes: An interesting concept. That we can imagine undetectable things? I spose that is sorta interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Granny magda writes
Dennett is primarily a philosopher rather than a scientist. His specialities include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Obviously, he writes a great deal about cognitive and evolutionary science, but I do not feel that he is a fair exemplar of "a scientist". Neither is Dawkins a typical example of "a scientist". Dawkins is actually not the most remarkable research scientist. His great strength has always been the communication of scientific ideas, rather than discovering them himself. Also, he is far better known these days for his atheism than his science. This is far from typical of scientists as a whole, most of whom prefer to... well, do science, rather than write polemics against Christianity. The vast majority of scientists do not concern themselves with people's religious beliefs. Dennett and Dawkins do (and it would be fair to describe their zeal for de-conversion as "evangelical") but they are very far from being typical of scientists as a whole. You shouldn't let them colour your image of the average scientist. thank you for your kind words. I agree with you about Dawkins and Dennett and was citing them for their advocacy, not there sciencetific writings. I have nothing but respect for most of the scientists I have been reading since my retirement. I posted my original message after a fairly through review of writings from neo-darwinists, creationists, philosphers, physicists, and scientists who advocate intelligent design such as Behe and Stephen Meyer.My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline. I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Created quote box. Use "peek" to see how it is done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. So where are the ID based experiments on Origins of life (OOL) comparable to the various naturalistic model experiments, i.e. testing of abiotic amino acid synthesis and peptide formation, identification of enzymatically active RNA sequences, testing for feasibility of self replicating RNA sequences? There is a productive ongoing chemical OOL research program in biology/chemistry. Where is the productive ID based OOL research program? Is there anything on the table from Meyer in fact other than one great big argument from incredulity wrapped up with a specious big number generated by pulling calculations out of the air. If you think that ID isn't being given the same chance then where is all the ID research being rejected from mainstream journals? There is nothing in this day and age to stop them getting it out independently. Even the Design Institute's own journal (BIO-complexity) has only had 2 papers in it and only one actually had any research. Why isn't it packed to the gunnels with all the ID research which has been blackballed by the mainstream peer reviewed journals over the last decade or more? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: I posted my original message after a fairly through review of writings from neo-darwinists, creationists, philosphers, physicists, and scientists who advocate intelligent design such as Behe and Stephen Meyer. My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline. I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science. How can ID be a historical look at the origin of life? What is the ID model? How does the designer actually manipulate things? Even if there were a designer, why would it be of any importance or interest beyond a historical footnote or in cases of product liability suits? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
BIO-complexity is effectively their SECOND Journal, after the defunct ISCID. Which lasted something like 4 or 5 issues, even after lowering their already low standards.
I've got to say that accusing scientists of engaging in a double standard just because a leader of the ID movement claims that ID is scientific (a clear case of "he would say that, wouldn't he ?") is jumping to conclusions - and to specifically single out natural selection seems even worse.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024