Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can evolution explain body symmetry?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 284 (226851)
07-27-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jar
07-27-2005 5:15 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
Indeed. Evolution is successful because it explains observed phenomena known in Darwin's time as well as discovered subsequently.
ID, on the other hand, starts off with a hypothesis (for which there is no motivation other than a dislike for "naturalism") and is now desperately looking of any kind of confirmatory evidence, whether it's Behe's embarassing attempts at "irreducible complexity" or Dembski's "specified complexity" lunacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 07-27-2005 5:15 PM jar has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 197 of 284 (226877)
07-27-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by jar
07-27-2005 5:15 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
I'm not a scientist so there is little point in attempting to plough into this in a evidential way. What strikes however is the following conundrum. Or rather, apparent stalemate.
ID is a view which appears to be held by people who, on the basis of education, intellect and experience should be in a position to evaluate evidence impartially. These people use their abilities and consider the data and come to particular conclusions about it. Other people who have similar base credentials examine the data and come to quite different conclusions about it. Opposing conclusion in fact.
The existance of so much debate, ID/Evolution/YEC/OEC and God knows what else, leads me to suppose that it's not the raw data which provides the facts, its the interpretation of the raw data. Or in other words, facts are open to interpretation. And if that's the case, then facts are not absolute. The best that can be talked about is... likely. And if likely then someones got to decide how likely.
And it turns out the people who say "99.99% sure", "FACT", "as certain a fact as that the earth is round", are the people who also happen to believe it to be true. Which comes first though: the chicken or the egg? The question arises in my mind: how does a modern day evolution-holding scientist, who had grown up on a diet of 100% Evolution, surrounded by the majority of his/her peers who have been similarily nourished, who cannot provide any particular scientific evidence as to why they stand above and beyond a universal human trait: the trait which makes most of us want to fit in with the crowd....how is it that they do the following? How does that scientist know for sure that they are examining the evidence impartially? Or rather, examining it free of pre-disposition?
If disposition...and I really can't see how not.. then how much? and how much effect will that have on their interpretation. How would one even think of a way of factoring a corrector into the equations to compensate for it? There is no safety in the fact that a large number of scientists hold a particular view either. Have they not all been bitten by exactly the same pre-dispositionary bug?
Wasn't it Einstein who factored a constant in to his science because he was repulsed by the idea of an expanding universe? Scientists aren't gods, they're just people. Can a closed group of people get it very badly wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 07-27-2005 5:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 07-27-2005 7:27 PM iano has replied
 Message 199 by Chiroptera, posted 07-27-2005 8:23 PM iano has replied
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2005 8:41 PM iano has replied
 Message 201 by Omnivorous, posted 07-27-2005 9:02 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 198 of 284 (226881)
07-27-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
07-27-2005 6:51 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
Is there any content in your post?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 07-27-2005 6:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 5:01 AM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 284 (226892)
07-27-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
07-27-2005 6:51 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
quote:
Can a closed group of people get it very badly wrong?
Science is not a closed group of people. The number of biological scientists is far too large and the variety of people engaged in the biological sciences is far too great for me to believe that they are victims of the kind of "group think" that you are suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 07-27-2005 6:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 5:49 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 200 of 284 (226893)
07-27-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
07-27-2005 6:51 PM


interpretations
These people use their abilities and consider the data and come to particular conclusions about it. Other people who have similar base credentials examine the data and come to quite different conclusions about it. Opposing conclusion in fact.
In the sciences this is always a possible outcome and, in fact, is rather frequent. The process is designed to work through this.
The individuals publish, in very, very great detail their reasoning. Then others critisize it and it is corrected.
Unfortunately, the proponents of ID seem to want to go directly to the public and, at least in what I've seen ignore critism. The mathematical probability arguments still seem to be put forward even though it is pretty easy to show they flaws in them.
Why is that?
Can a closed group of people get it very badly wrong?
Yes, but so far the process has been shown to (slowly perhaps) correct when things are wrong.
You can speculate about such problems all you want. All that really counts is that you show where it has gone wrong. The ID folks don't seem to be doing a great job of that so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 07-27-2005 6:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 7:11 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 201 of 284 (226901)
07-27-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
07-27-2005 6:51 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
quote:
Can a closed group of people get it very badly wrong?
Yes. They are called Creationists, among other things.
My first impulse was to dissect your post, supposition by supposition, unsupported premise by unsupported premise, beginning with the notion that Creationists in general have the "education, intellect and experience" to contend with scientists who have devoted their lives to a field, moving through the bizarre notion that "evolutionists" are nurtured in some sort of artificial dork-womb room...
It made me feel so tired.
Then I read your opening comment again...
quote:
I'm not a scientist so there is little point in attempting to plough into this in a evidential way.
...and I felt so free.
Now, what did you have to offer about body symmetry?
You know, in a nonevidential sort of way.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-27-2005 09:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 07-27-2005 6:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 6:09 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 202 of 284 (226953)
07-28-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
07-27-2005 7:27 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
Possibly not much... but a little more that in yours
I didn't notice the lack of content in Methalyses post (from were we've evolved) causing you a moments concern. Micro-evidence of pre-disposition in action mayhaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 07-27-2005 7:27 PM jar has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 203 of 284 (226959)
07-28-2005 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Chiroptera
07-27-2005 8:23 PM


Re: What's good for the goose...
In amongst the bewildering (to me anyway) logic that was 'The Blind Watchmaker' I remember a little jewel of wisdom which went something like "An argument from incredulity is no argument". IOW, that you cannot believe something, has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
A closed system is not made open by it being BIG. The Universe, if finite would be a closed system even though big. Very many, though not all, Germans came to believe, to varying degrees, in the tenets of National Socialism in the 1930's. Martin Luther demonstrated that a large,established and widely accepted orthodoxy could to a significant degree, be turned on its head. Scientists were people before they were scientists.
That accuracy and self-correction follow from 'large' is something that would be interesting to see demonstrated as a sure-fire fact. Science has indeed the ability to self correct, but 'ability' is not the same as 'it is sure to happen'
What are the mechanisms leading to 'group think'? Are not indoctrination, peer pressure, propoganda central elements in it. Is this not what athiestic evolution says happens in the schools when God or Creation is taught? Why not children watching Evolutionary natural history programmes be similarily indoctrinated
If these words seems inflammatory, note that 'Darwins Black Box' did a index survey of popular college Science textbooks under the search word 'evolution' and demonstrated that not only did they have virtually nothing factual to say on the subject of Evolution - just the bald statement that Evolution was a fact as proven as the the world is round. They then proceeded to teach the science on that basis. Shades of indoctrination it seems to me
So I repeat the question. How does a scientist demonstrate that his science,is not being influenced, Einstein-like, by pre-disposition? If somone could demonstrate this, then there would be every reason to believe that others could too.
And vice-versa
This message has been edited by iano, 07-28-2005 08:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Chiroptera, posted 07-27-2005 8:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Chiroptera, posted 07-28-2005 11:23 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 204 of 284 (226960)
07-28-2005 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Omnivorous
07-27-2005 9:02 PM


Re: An Irreducibly complex question
Now, what did you have to offer about body symmetry?
About the same amount as Methylase from whence we came. If I'm out of order on this (newbie-itis) then I apologise and will bugger off somewhere else.
Otherwise, the question posed in my last post kind of sums up my query.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Omnivorous, posted 07-27-2005 9:02 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 205 of 284 (226961)
07-28-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by NosyNed
07-27-2005 8:41 PM


Darwin revisited?
In the sciences this is always a possible outcome and, in fact, is rather frequent. The process is designed to work through this.
Hi NosyNed (sometimes I wonder about the source material for peoples call signs!). The Scientific process was never designed. It has evolved over centuries. Major blunders (as well as major triumphs) throughout mean that for all the evidence, Evolution could be a major blunder. That's a 'could be'...now for an 'is'
There exists a mass of evidence to indicate that indoctrination has occured: folk are told Evolution is a fact for from their formative years upwards, long before they have been equipped (if ever they truly could be) to establish the facts for themselves. Note: whether the indoctrination is ultimately true or false matters not. It's still indoctrination.
I'm not attempting to question the whole scientific enterprise with the above. Only those areas where mass indoctrination can be shown to be more than assertion. If no neasurement has been made for the influence of such indoctrination on a science, then it is excellent Science to consider the whole of the science in question as suspect. Subjecting published papers to a rigorous critique, which takes no account of the effects that massive indoctrination may have had, is not science.
Unfortunately, the proponents of ID seem to want to go directly to the public...
Why is that?
Sorry I can't answer your actual question here as I am 'evidentially challenged' in this area ...but do allow me to mis-quote you for a second to make an observation. Maybe in going public, the ID-ers are taking a leaf out of Darwins book. It worked pretty well for him!! Think about it as a tactic. If ID-ers were to bypass the scientific community and go straight to public, they might happen to awaken the interest of a media who are interested in conflict and eager to make natural history programmes that would sell (as opposed to ones which were true). If indoctrination works (as I suggest it has) then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
As a tactic you'd have to admire it's brilliance - if not it's science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2005 8:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by CK, posted 07-28-2005 7:19 AM iano has not replied
 Message 207 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-28-2005 7:36 AM iano has replied
 Message 216 by nator, posted 07-28-2005 11:02 AM iano has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 206 of 284 (226962)
07-28-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by iano
07-28-2005 7:11 AM


Re: Darwin revisited?
I read your post and I'm depressed for the future. Honestly.
So very depressed.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 28-Jul-2005 07:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 7:11 AM iano has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 284 (226966)
07-28-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by iano
07-28-2005 7:11 AM


OOT to ID forum?
quote:
Sorry I can't answer your actual question here as I am 'evidentially challenged' in this area ...but do allow me to mis-quote you for a second to make an observation. Maybe in going public, the ID-ers are taking a leaf out of Darwins book. It worked pretty well for him!! Think about it as a tactic. If ID-ers were to bypass the scientific community and go straight to public, they might happen to awaken the interest of a media who are interested in conflict and eager to make natural history programmes that would sell (as opposed to ones which were true). If indoctrination works (as I suggest it has) then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
OOT, but I'd love to see you talk more about this. How about starting one at Intelligent Design?
Btw, by your proposal you have undermined the effort of major ID proponents who worked so hard to portray ID as genuine science. You reduced it into... propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 7:11 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 8:23 AM Andya Primanda has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 208 of 284 (226970)
07-28-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Andya Primanda
07-28-2005 7:36 AM


East,, west - which home is best?
By no means do I intend to reduce ID-ists work to the level of propaganda only and regret giving that impression. I strongly suspect that there is valid science at it's base but in truth, I'm not in a position to really know one way or the other. On the basis of concrete personal belief however, I'm inclined to think that ID has much going for it - as may well evolution, at some less absolute level.
However, if your trying to establish a science and need to compete for the limited resources that must be available for research-leading-to-publication-leading-to-establishment then ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Quite a brilliant move - if that was the intention. Happens all the time I'm sure and I see nothing to get depressed about!
OOT
Thought as much. I'm not sure exactly where this topic, which could be summed up as "Quantifying the effects of Evolutionary indoctrination on the processs of Scientific Evaluation" should find a home. It's hasn't much to do with ID - it's about Evolution...
Anybody kind soul out there willing to help a somewhat bewildered newbie out as to best place for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-28-2005 7:36 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-28-2005 8:51 AM iano has not replied
 Message 210 by AdminJar, posted 07-28-2005 9:01 AM iano has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 284 (226981)
07-28-2005 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by iano
07-28-2005 8:23 AM


Re: East,, west - which home is best?
Misc. Topics or Is it Science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 8:23 AM iano has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 284 (226986)
07-28-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by iano
07-28-2005 8:23 AM


How to start a thread
Begin by posting your opening message in Proposed New Topics. The Admins will then work with you to make sure it's focused and to find the best place for it to go.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 8:23 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by iano, posted 07-28-2005 9:06 AM AdminJar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024